Final Report For Effect of Shear Stud Layout On The Seismic Behavior of Slab-Column Connections PDF

Drift Capacity of Slab-Column Connections Reinforced with
Headed Shear Studs and Subjected to Combined Gravity Load and

Biaxial Lateral Displacements
By:
Eric M. Matzke
Rémy D. Lequesne
Carol K. Shield
Gustavo J. Parra-Montesinos
July 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was made possible by financial support provided by the US National
Science Foundation, as part of the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES) Program (Grant No. 0936519), the Charles Pankow Foundation, and the
Concrete Research Council of the American Concrete Institute. Erico International
Corporation donated reinforcement and screw-type mechanical couplers used in
Specimens B1 through B3. The opinions presented in this report are those of the writers
and do not necessarily express the views of the sponsors.
The writers would also like to thank the valuable comments provided by Dr. Randy
Poston from WDP & Associates, Inc., Professor Jack P. Moehle from the University of
California at Berkeley, and Mr. Ed Dean from Nishkian and Dean. Thanks are also due to
Mr. David Fields from Magunsson Klemencic Associates, Mr. Cary Kopcyznksi, from
Cary Kopczynski & Company, and Professor Sharon L. Wood, from the University of
Texas at Austin, who served as advisors for this project.
The tests described herein could not have been completed without the expert staff at the
University of Minnesota NEES-MAST Laboratory, especially Paul Bergson, Rachel
Gaulke, Drew Daugherty, Rick Snyder, and Mitch Reierson. The contributions of several
undergraduate workers and part-time staff, including Kevin Andrews, Eric Good, Ryan
Melhouse, Mounir Najm, Chris Nobach, Kevin Sarvela, and Marsha Swatosh, are also
acknowledged.
i
Table of Contents
Table of Tables ................................................................................................................v
Table of Figures............................................................................................................. vi
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................1
1.1. Slab-Column Connections in Flat Plate Frame Systems .....................................1
1.2. Shear Reinforcement in Seismic Regions ...........................................................2
1.3. Shear Design Provisions for Slab-Column Connections with Headed Shear Stud
Reinforcement (2008 ACI Building Code) .........................................................4
1.4. Research Motivation and Objectives ..................................................................6
2. Experimental Investigation ......................................................................................8
2.1. Overall Specimen Configuration ........................................................................8
2.2. Specimen Design ...............................................................................................9
2.3. Specimen Instrumentation ............................................................................... 13
2.3.1. Strain Gauges ........................................................................................... 13
2.3.2. Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs) ................................. 14
2.3.3. String Potentiometers ............................................................................... 15
2.3.4. Telepresence ............................................................................................ 15
2.4. Material Properties .......................................................................................... 15
2.4.1. Concrete ................................................................................................... 15
2.4.2. Reinforcing Steel ...................................................................................... 16
2.4.3. Shear Stud Reinforcement ........................................................................ 16
2.5. Test Activities ................................................................................................. 16
2.5.1. Pretest Activities ...................................................................................... 16
2.5.2. Loading Methods...................................................................................... 17
2.5.3. Loading Protocol ...................................................................................... 19
3. Experimental Results ............................................................................................. 22
3.1. Damage Progression ........................................................................................ 22
3.1.1. Specimen B1 ............................................................................................ 22
3.1.2. Specimen B2 ............................................................................................ 23
3.1.3. Specimen B3 ............................................................................................ 24
3.1.4. Specimen B4 ............................................................................................ 25
ii
3.2. Observations After Completion of Testing ....................................................... 26
3.2.1. Specimen B1 ............................................................................................ 26
3.2.2. Specimen B2 ............................................................................................ 27
3.2.3. Specimen B3 ............................................................................................ 28
3.2.4. Specimen B4 ............................................................................................ 28
3.3. Load Drift Response and Gravity Shear History .............................................. 29
3.3.1. Specimen B1 ............................................................................................ 30
3.3.2. Specimen B2 ............................................................................................ 32
3.3.3. Specimen B3 ............................................................................................ 33
3.3.4. Specimen B4 ............................................................................................ 35
3.4. Load versus Drift Envelope Response.............................................................. 36
3.5. Vertical Drop of Slab at Column...................................................................... 38
3.6. Maximum Shear Stress Based on Eccentric Shear Model................................. 39
3.7. Slab-Column Flexural Rotations ...................................................................... 44
3.8. Shear Stud Strains ........................................................................................... 44
3.8.1. Stud Rail Strain Profile ............................................................................. 44
3.8.2. Specimen B1 ............................................................................................ 45
3.8.3. Specimen B2 ............................................................................................ 46
3.8.4. Specimen B3 ............................................................................................ 46
3.8.5. Specimen B4 ............................................................................................ 47
3.9. Slab Flexural Reinforcement Strain Readings .................................................. 48
3.9.1. Specimen B1 ............................................................................................ 48
3.9.2. Specimen B2 ............................................................................................ 50
3.9.3. Specimen B3 ............................................................................................ 50
3.9.4. Specimen B4 ............................................................................................ 51
3.10. Column Base Rotations ................................................................................... 52
3.11. Twist of Slab Relative to Column .................................................................... 53
4. Discussion of Failure Mechanisms and Recommendations for Design.................... 55
4.1. Specimen Performance .................................................................................... 55
4.1.1. General..................................................................................................... 55
4.1.2. Specimen B1 ............................................................................................ 56
iii
4.1.3. Specimen B2 ............................................................................................ 58
4.1.4. Specimen B3 ............................................................................................ 61
4.1.5. Specimen B4 ............................................................................................ 64
4.2. Summary of Failure Evolution ......................................................................... 66
4.3. Shear Studs and Concrete Confinement ........................................................... 67
4.4. Recommendations for Design .......................................................................... 69
4.4.1. Contribution of Concrete to Shear Capacity .............................................. 69
4.4.2. Minimum Shear Stud Reinforcement and Maximum Peripheral Shear Stud
Spacing .................................................................................................... 70
4.4.3. Maximum Connection Shear Capacity ...................................................... 71
4.5. Drift and Gravity-Shear Ratio .......................................................................... 71
5. Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 73
References ..................................................................................................................... 77
Tables ............................................................................................................................ 81
Figures ........................................................................................................................ 114
Appendices .................................................................................................................. 231
A. Shear Stud Reinforcement Design ........................................................................ 231
B. Slab-Column Rotations ........................................................................................ 235
C. Bottom Story and Second Half-Story Drift Ratios ................................................ 244
iv
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Slab and Connection Details for Each Specimen ........................................... 81
Table 2-2: Strain Gauge Locations ................................................................................. 82
Table 2-3: Average Concrete Cylinder Strengths [psi] ................................................... 83
Table 2-4: Strength of Steel Reinforcement [ksi] ........................................................... 84
Table 2-5: Applied Gravity Shear to Connection ............................................................ 85
Table 2-6: Lateral Story Drift at Each Cycle .................................................................. 86
Table 3-1: Specimen B1 - Peak Resultant Lateral Forces (in kips) Achieved throughout
Test .................................................................................................................... 87
Test .................................................................................................................... 88
Test .................................................................................................................... 89
Test .................................................................................................................... 90
Table 3-5: Peak Lateral Forces Achieved throughout Tests ............................................ 91
Table 3-6: Shear Stress at Critical Section for Specimen B1 .......................................... 92
Table 3-7: Shear Stress at Critical Section for Specimen B2 .......................................... 96
Table 3-8: Shear Stress at Critical Section for Specimen B3 ........................................ 100
Table 3-9: Shear Stress at Critical Section for Specimen B4 ........................................ 105
Table 3-10: Peak Shear Stresses on Critical Section ..................................................... 110
Table 3-11: Design and Calculated Shear Capacity of Slabs and Peak Shear Stresses... 110
v
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Stud Rail Assembly ................................................................................... 114
Figure 1-2: Orthogonal Stud Rail Arrangement ............................................................ 114
Figure 1-3: Shear Stud Reinforcement Shear Transfer Mechanism ............................... 115
Figure 1-4: Shear Reinforcement Provided in a Previously Reported Shear Stud
Reinforced Specimen (Cheng et al. 2009)......................................................... 115
Figure 1-5: Lateral Load Versus Drift Response of Specimen with Shear Stud
Reinforcement Reported in Cheng et al. (2010), with Circle Indicating
Development of a Punching Shear Failure ........................................................ 116
Figure 1-6: Punching Shear Crack between First and Second Row of Shear Stud from
Specimen SB3 (Cheng et al. 2010) ................................................................... 116
Figure 2-1: Elevation View of Setup ............................................................................ 117
Figure 2-2: 3D Model of Test Configuration ................................................................ 118
Figure 2-3: Detail of Ancillary Actuator-to-Slab Connection ....................................... 119
Figure 2-4: Steel Tube Layout on Slab Perimeter ......................................................... 119
Figure 2-5: Specimen Elevation and Column Reinforcement Details ........................... 120
Figure 2-6: Bottom Slab Reinforcement Layout ........................................................... 121
Figure 2-7: Top Slab Reinforcement Layout ................................................................ 122
Figure 2-8: Bottom Mat Reinforcement Serving as Integrity Steel (courtesy of Jack P.
Moehle) ........................................................................................................... 123
Figure 2-9: Shear Reinforcement Details for Specimen B1 .......................................... 124
Figure 2-10: Shear Reinforcement Details for Specimen B2 ........................................ 125
Figure 2-13: Base Block Dimensions and Reinforcement Details ................................. 128
Figure 2-14: Top Block Dimensions and Reinforcement Details .................................. 129
Figure 2-15: Strain Gauge Locations on Bottom Slab Reinforcing Bars ....................... 130
Figure 2-16: Strain Gauge Locations on Top Slab Reinforcing Bars ............................ 131
Figure 2-17: Strain Gauge Location Key ...................................................................... 132
Figure 2-18: Location of Strain Gauges on Longitudinal Column Steel ........................ 132
Figure 2-19: Specimen B1 Strain Gauge Layout for Shear Studs.................................. 133
vi
Figure 2-23: LVDT Locations in Slab Region .............................................................. 137
Figure 2-24: Column/Base LVDT Locations................................................................ 140
Figure 2-25: Location of LVDTs Measuring Base Block Slippage (As Viewed From
Above) ............................................................................................................. 140
Figure 2-26: String Potentiometer Locations ................................................................ 141
Figure 2-27: External Forces Applied to Slab............................................................... 142
Figure 2-28: Intended Loading Sequence ..................................................................... 143
Figure 3-1: Specimen B1 – Initiation of Punching Shear Damage at 1.85% Drift,
Point 8 ............................................................................................................. 144
Figure 3-2: Specimen B1 – Connection Damage at 2.30% Drift, Point 4-5................... 144
Figure 3-3: Specimen B1 – Diagonal, Radial Crack at Northeast Column Corner ........ 145
Figure 3-4: Specimen B2 – Bottom Surface of Slab-Column Connection Prior to
Testing ............................................................................................................. 145
Point 5 ............................................................................................................. 146
Point 5 ............................................................................................................. 147
Point 11 ........................................................................................................... 148
Figure 3-10: Specimen B4 – Connection Damage at 2.30% Drift, Point 8 .................... 148
Figure 3-11: Failure Surface of Connection B1 ............................................................ 149
Figure 3-12: Specimen B1 – Bottom View of North-East Corner of Slab-Column
Connection After Test ...................................................................................... 150
Figure 3-13: Specimen B1 – Void in Connection Region on East and South Faces of
Connection After Test ...................................................................................... 150
Figure 3-14: Specimen B1 – Sound Concrete on North Face of Connection After Test 151
vii
Figure 3-15: Schematic of Specimen B2Failure Surface .............................................. 151
Figure 3-16: Specimen B2 – Connection Region where Severely Degraded Concrete was
Removed by Hand After Test ........................................................................... 152
Figure 3-17: Specimen B2 – Stud Weld Fracture and Dowel Action in Rails ............... 152
Figure 3-18: Specimen B3 – Void in Connection Region after Loose Concrete was
Removed After Test ......................................................................................... 153
Figure 3-19: Specimen B3 – Bending of Base Rail between First and Second Shear
Stud ................................................................................................................. 153
Figure 3-20: Specimen B4 – Gravel-Like Concrete within Connection Region ............ 154
Removed After Test ......................................................................................... 154
Figure 3-22: Specimen B4 – Bending of Base Rail on South-East Face of Column After
Test .................................................................................................................. 155
Figure 3-23: Y-Axis Drift for the First Story, Second Half-Story, and Full Specimen of
Specimen B2 .................................................................................................... 156
Figure 3-24: Specimen B1 – Load versus Drift Response (X-Direction) ...................... 157
Figure 3-25: Specimen B1 – Load versus Drift Response (Y-Direction) ...................... 157
Figure 3-26: Specimen B1 – Resultant Load versus Drift Response ............................. 158
Figure 3-27: Specimen B1 – Relationship Between Moments Transferred into the
Column About the X- and Y-Axes ................................................................... 158
Figure 3-28: Specimen B1 – Gravity Shear History ..................................................... 159
viii
Figure 3-44: Resultant Lateral Load versus Resultant Drift Envelopes at Corner Points on
Cloverleaf Cycle (Drift was Not Corrected For Base Slip)................................ 169
Figure 3-45: Resultant Lateral Load versus Resultant Drift Envelopes in X-Directions on
Figure 3-46: Resultant Lateral Load versus Resultant Drift Envelopes in Y-Directions on
Figure 3-47: Schematic of Slab Drop Due to Diagonal Punching Shear Crack (left) and
Sliding Shear (right), with Reinforcement Omitted for Clarity.......................... 172
Figure 3-48: Specimen B2 – Vertical Drop of Slab Bottom Relative to the Column at
Each Column Corner ........................................................................................ 173
Figure 3-51: 2008 ACI Code Assumed Distribution of Shear Stresses in Square Interior
Column ............................................................................................................ 176
Figure 3-52: Moment Transferred to Column Versus Slab Rotation at the North Column
Face of Specimen B2 ....................................................................................... 177
Figure 3-53: Specimen B1 – Profile of Strains in Studs on Rails Placed Orthogonal to the
South and East Column Faces .......................................................................... 178
Column Faces .................................................................................................. 179
ix
Column Faces .................................................................................................. 180
Figure 3-56: Specimen B3 – Strains Recorded in Stud RO-SE2, Showing Large Increases
Before Points 7 and 10 When the Gravity Load on the Slab was Reloaded ....... 181
Figure 3-57: Specimen B3 – Profile of Strains in Studs on Rails Placed at 45 Degrees
From Column Faces ......................................................................................... 182
Column Faces Away from the Corners (Inner Orthogonal) ............................... 183
Column Faces Near the Corners (Outer Orthogonal) ........................................ 184
Figure 3-60: Specimen B4 – Profile of Strains in Studs on Rails Placed at 45 Degrees
From Column Faces ......................................................................................... 185
Figure 3-61: Specimen B1 – Profile of Strains in Top Mat Flexural Reinforcement Placed
in the X-Direction at d/2 from Column Face..................................................... 186
in the Y-Direction at d/2 from Column Face..................................................... 187
Figure 3-63: Specimen B1 – Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge TE2 ....................... 188
Figure 3-65: Specimen B1 – Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge TS3 ....................... 189
Figure 3-66: Specimen B1 – Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge BS2 ....................... 189
Figure 3-70: Specimen B1 – Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge BE7 ....................... 191
Figure 3-71: Specimen B2 – Profile of Strains in Flexural Reinforcement Placed in the X-
Direction at d/2 from Column Face .................................................................. 192
Figure 3-72: Specimen B2 – Profile of Strains in Flexural Reinforcement Placed in the Y-
Direction at d/2 from Column Face .................................................................. 193
x
in the X-Direction at d/2 from Column Face..................................................... 199
in the X-Direction at d/2 from Column Face. Gauge TS3, Located 3 in. From the
Centerline of the Slab, was Damaged After the 1.85% Drift Cycle. .................. 204
Figure 3-93: Specimen B4 – Applied Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge TE2 .......... 206
Figure 3-94: Specimen B4 – Applied Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge TS2 .......... 206
Figure 3-97: Specimen B4 – Applied Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge BE2 .......... 208
Figure 3-98: Specimen B4 – Applied Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge BE3 .......... 208
Figure 3-99: Specimen B4 – Applied Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge BS3 .......... 209
Figure 3-100: Specimen B1 – Column Base Moment versus Rotation (About X-Axis) 210
Figure 3-101: Specimen B1 – Column Base Moment versus Rotation (About Y-Axis) 210
xi
Figure 3-108: Specimen B1 – Rotation About Vertical Z-Axis .................................... 214
Figure 4-1: Average Strain in the Bottom Face of the Slab of Specimen B1, Measured
Within One Effective Slab Depth of the Column Face ...................................... 216
Figure 4-2: Specimen B1 – Strain from Gauge R-E1, Showing a Change in Slope and
Large Increase In Strain While Loading to Point 8 of 1.60% Drift Cycle .......... 216
Figure 4-3: Specimen B1 – Strain from Gauge R-E2, Indicating a Large Increase in Strain
Beyond Yield While Loading to Point 11 of 1.85% Drift Cycle ....................... 217
Figure 4-4: Specimen B1 – Strain from Gauge R-S1, Indicating a Large Increase in Strain
Beyond Yield Followed by a Decrease in Strain While Loading to Point 2 of
2.30% Drift Cycle ............................................................................................ 217
Figure 4-5: Specimen B1 – Strain from Gauge BS-S2, Indicating a Shift from
Compression to Tension Strains While Loading to Point 2 of 2.30% Drift
Cycle ............................................................................................................... 218
Figure 4-6: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge R-E1, the Only Instrumented Stud to
Exhibit Strains Exceeding 0.0015 Prior to the Cycle to 1.85% Drift (1.60% Drift
Cycle is Bold) .................................................................................................. 218
Figure 4-7: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge R-W1, Showing a Large Increase in Strain
During the 1.85% Drift Cycle as the Specimen Reached Point 5 ...................... 219
Figure 4-8: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge BS-S3, Showing a Shift from Flexural
Compression to Integrity Reinforcement-Type Tension During the 1.85% Drift
Cycle ............................................................................................................... 219
xii
Figure 4-9: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge BS-E2, Showing a Decrease in Strain of
0.0006 While Loading to Point 8 of 1.85% Drift Cycle .................................... 220
Figure 4-10: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge TS-E9, Showing a Change in Slope
While Loading to Point 8 of 1.85% Drift Cycle ................................................ 220
Figure 4-11: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge R-S1, Showing a Jump in Strain and
Increase Beyond Yield While Loading to Point 11 of 1.85% Drift Cycle .......... 221
Figure 4-12: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RO-SW2, Showing a Marked Increase in
Strain While Loading to Point 2 of 1.15% Drift Cycle ...................................... 221
Figure 4-13: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RR-NW1, Showing Large Strains But No
Clear Initiation of Cracking (Response versus X-Drift is Similar) .................... 222
Figure 4-14: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RR-NW6, Showing a Change in Slope
and Increase in Strain While Loading to Point 5 of 1.85% Drift ....................... 222
Figure 4-15: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RR-NE1, Showing an Uncharacteristic
Negative Slope While Loading to 8 of 1.85% Drift .......................................... 223
Figure 4-16: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RO-SE1, Showing a Large Increase in
Strain While Loading to Point 11 of 1.85% Drift .............................................. 223
Figure 4-17: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RO-WS1, Showing Yielding and a Large
Increase in Strain While Loading to Point 4 of 2.30% Drift Cycle .................... 224
Figure 4-18: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge BS-E3, Showing Compressive Strains
Late in the 1.85% Drift Cycle and Throughout the 2.30% Drift Cycle .............. 224
Figure 4-19: Specimen B4 – Strain from Gauge OO-SE2, Showing an Uncharacteristic
Decline in Strain While Loading to Point 11 of the 1.40% and 1.60% Drift
Cycles .............................................................................................................. 225
Figure 4-20: Specimen B4 – Strain from Gauge OI-SW2, Showing a Steep Increase in
Strain While Loading to Point 11 of the 1.85% Drift Cycle .............................. 225
Figure 4-21: Specimen B4 – Strain from Gauge OI-WN2, Showing Strains Near Yield
(Circled) Followed by a Large Increase in Strain While Loading to Points 2 and 5
of the 2.30% Drift Cycle .................................................................................. 226
Figure 4-22: Specimen B4 – Strain from Gauge BS-S3, Showing a Very Large Increase
in Strain While Loading to Point 5 of the 2.30% Drift Cycle ............................ 226
xiii
Figure 4-23: Specimen B2 – Connection Region where Damaged Concrete was Removed
by Hand ........................................................................................................... 227
Removed .......................................................................................................... 227
Figure 4-25: Specimen B4 – Gravel-Like Concrete within Connection Region ............ 228
Figure 4-26: Specimen B4 – Void between Slab and Column after Loose Concrete Had
Been Removed ................................................................................................. 228
Figure 4-27: Schematic of Traditional Shear Failure Mechanism Governed by Diagonal
Shear Cracking Bridged by Shear Stud Reinforcement ..................................... 229
Figure 4-28: Drift Capacity versus Gravity Shear Ratio from Various Researchers ...... 230
Figure A-1: Shear Reinforcement Layout for Specimen B1 ......................................... 233
Figure A-2: Shear Reinforcement Layout for Specimen B2 ......................................... 234
Figure B-1: Specimen B1 – Slab-Column Rotations in X-Direction ............................. 236
Figure B-2: Specimen B1 – Slab-Column Rotations in Y-Direction ............................. 237
Figure C-1: Specimen B1 – Load versus First Story Drift in X-Direction ..................... 245
Figure C-2: Specimen B1 – Load versus Second Half-Story Drift in X-Direction ........ 245
Figure C-3: Specimen B1 – Load versus First Story Drift in Y-Direction ..................... 246
Figure C-4: Specimen B1 – Load versus Second Half-Story Drift in Y-Direction ........ 246
Figure C-6: Specimen B2 – Load versus Second Half-Story Drift in X-Direction ........ 247
Figure C-7: Specimen B2 – Load versus First Story Drift in Y-Direction ..................... 248
Figure C-8: Specimen B2 – Load versus Second Half-Story Drift in Y-Direction ........ 248
Figure C-10: Specimen B3 – Load versus Second Half-Story Drift in X-Direction ...... 249
Figure C-11: Specimen B3 – Load versus First Story Drift in Y-Direction ................... 250
xiv
Figure C-12: Specimen B3 – Load versus Second Half-Story Drift in Y-Direction ...... 250
Figure C-13: Specimen B4 – Load versus First Story Drift in X-Direction ................... 251
Figure C-14: Specimen B4 – Load versus Second Half-Story Drift in X-Direction ...... 251
Figure C-15: Specimen B4 – Load versus First Story Drift in Y-Direction ................... 252
Figure C-16: Specimen B4 – Load versus Second Half-Story Drift in Y-Direction ...... 252
Figure C-17: Specimen B1 – First Story, Second Half-Story, and Full Specimen X-Axis
Drift ................................................................................................................. 253
Figure C-18: Specimen B1 – First Story, Second Half-Story, and Full Specimen Y-Axis
Drift ................................................................................................................. 253
Drift ................................................................................................................. 254
Drift ................................................................................................................. 254
Drift ................................................................................................................. 255
Drift ................................................................................................................. 255
Drift ................................................................................................................. 256
Drift ................................................................................................................. 256
xv
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Slab-Column Connections in Flat Plate Frame Systems

In reinforced concrete construction, flat plate frame systems feature slabs supported
directly by columns without the use of beams, drop panels, or column capitals. Flat plates
are widely used and often preferred due to economical, functional, and architectural
benefits. Some of these advantages include simplified formwork, which reduces
installation time and material costs; reduced story heights, which decreases construction
costs; and general aesthetic appearance.
When used in combination with a lateral force resisting system, such as a moment
resisting frame or shear wall, flat plates are sometimes utilized in areas of medium to
high seismicity. Although flat plate frames are not designed to contribute to lateral
resistance, they still must exhibit sufficient ductility to support gravity loads while
undergoing lateral displacements experienced by the structure during a seismic event.
There are two types of shear failures that must be accounted for in the design of flat-plate
slabs: one-way (or ‘beam’) shear and two-way shear. A one-way shear failure is
characterized by an inclined crack which extends the entire width of the slab. In general,
however, the primary shear design concern for flat plate slabs is two-way shear, which
occurs in slab regions where shear forces are transferred from the slab to supporting
columns or where concentrated loads are applied on the slab. Slabs failing in two-way
shear typically exhibit an inclined crack oriented at 20-45 degrees to the horizontal (slab
plane) around the column, creating a failure surface that resembles a truncated pyramid.
These failures are commonly referred to as “punching shear” failures, as the column
appears to punch through the slab as the latter drops away from the failure surface around
the column.
Punching shear failures result in a nearly complete and sudden loss of shear capacity,
offering little warning to building occupants. To reduce the likelihood of partial or
progressive collapse following a punching shear failure, continuous slab bottom
reinforcement passing through the column is often required (ACI Committee 318 2008,
1
ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 352 2011). This reinforcement ensures the slab can continue
to transfer gravity loads to the column through catenary action. However, due to the
brittle nature of punching shear failures, and the potential for partial or total structural
collapse, these failures must be prevented in flat plate structures.
1.2. Shear Reinforcement in Seismic Regions

Although slab-column frame systems are typically not assumed to contribute to the lateral
strength and stiffness of a structure, slab-column connections must be designed to
transfer shear from gravity loads as the structure undergoes earthquake-induced lateral
displacements. In addition to imposing large deformations on slab-column connections,
these lateral displacements lead to slab moments that need to be transferred to the
columns. These moments cause an increase in connection shear stress which, combined
with the presence of large deformations, further increases the potential for a punching
failure.
Degradation of shear resistance attributed to concrete, Vc, (i.e., aggregate interlock, dowel
action, and shear carried by the compression zone) in flexural members subjected to shear
reversals is well known (Wight and Sozen 1975, Scribner and Wight 1980). Thus, the
shear design of reinforced concrete beams is typically performed assuming the member
resists shear only through truss action (i.e., Vc = 0). However, preventing shear failures in
reinforced concrete flexural members subjected to large shear reversals not only requires
the use of sufficient transverse reinforcement to resist the entire shear demand, but also of
transverse reinforcement capable of maintaining the integrity of the concrete through
confinement (Wight and Sozen 1975). Although the use of shear reinforcement in slab-
column connections in earthquake-prone regions has become common practice in the past
few years, most types of shear reinforcement offer little or no confinement to the slab
concrete. This lack of confinement, combined with the fact that degradation of concrete
shear resisting mechanisms in slab-column connections is typically not accounted for in
design (ACI Committee 318 2008), increases the susceptibility of slab-column
connections to punching shear failures during earthquakes.
2
Currently, the most popular form of shear reinforcement for slabs in the United States is
headed shear stud reinforcement, also referred to as “stud rails.” Installation of shear stud
reinforcement is relatively simple; the base rails are nailed to the formwork prior to
placing the slab flexural reinforcement. A typical stud rail assembly is shown in Figure
1-1 and consists of smooth thin rods, each with a head at one end and welded to a base
rail at the other end. In the United States, stud rails are typically oriented perpendicularly
to each column face in order to minimize interference with reinforcing bars or post-
tensioning strands, as shown in Figure 1-2. In Europe, rails are more commonly placed in
a radial pattern around the column face (Broms 2007a), which allows a more even
distribution of reinforcement around the column compared to the orthogonal stud rail
layout shown in Figure 1-2.
As illustrated in Figure 1-3, shear stud reinforcement is intended to prevent punching

shear failures by intercepting inclined shear cracks as they form around the column.
Because the stud shanks are generally smooth, load in the studs is developed entirely
through mechanical anchorage provided by the head and the base rail. Testing has shown
that in order to reach the full yield strength of the stud prior to crushing the concrete, the
bearing area of the head must be at least 10 times the area of the vertical rod (Dilger and
Ghali 1981). A minimum head area of ten times the shank area is specified in the ACI
Building Code (ACI Committee 318 2008). Furthermore, shear stud reinforcement shall
extend as close as possible to the top and bottom slab surfaces in order to increase its
effectiveness in resisting shear.
Other forms of reinforcement have also been found to be effective at increasing punching
shear strength and rotational capacity of slab-column connections (Robertson et al. 2002);
however, shear stud reinforcement remains the most popular form, as the installation of
other types of shear reinforcement such as stirrups and shearheads tends to be difficult
and labor intensive.
3
1.3. Shear Design Provisions for Slab-Column Connections with Headed Shear Stud
Reinforcement (2008 ACI Building Code)
Design provisions for headed shear stud reinforcement were first introduced to the ACI
Building Code in 2008 (ACI Committee 318 2008). The nominal punching shear strength
of slab-column connections, vn, is taken equal to the summation of a concrete
contribution, vc, and a steel reinforcement contribution, vs. In connections with headed
shear stud reinforcement the concrete contribution to shear strength is taken equal to
√ (psi), which is 50% greater than the strength value used for connections with any
other bar-type shear reinforcements. In the commentary for Section 11.11.5 in the 2008
ACI Code, the use of a greater strength value in connections with headed shear studs is
attributed to a better reinforcement anchorage of shear studs compared to single leg
stirrups, which leads to “smaller [reinforcement] slip” and “smaller shear crack widths.”
Similarly, the maximum nominal shear stress in connections with headed shear stud
reinforcement is √ (psi), 1/3 greater than that used for other bar-type shear
reinforcements ( √ [psi]).
Contribution of shear stud reinforcement to shear strength is calculated as for other bar-
type shear reinforcements as follows,
(1.1)
where Av is the area of headed stud reinforcement in a single peripheral line of

reinforcement, fy is the yield strength of the headed stud reinforcement, s is the spacing
between peripheral lines of reinforcement, and bo is the perimeter of the critical section.
The amount of shear reinforcement provided must be such that vs ≥ √ (psi), while the
spacing is limited to 3d/4 for connections with a shear stress of up to √ (psi) and to
d/2 for higher shear stresses. Also, a spacing limit of 2d is specified between studs in the
first peripheral line of shear reinforcement.
For slab-column connections of structures located in areas designated as seismic design

categories D, E, and F and not part of the seismic-force-resisting system, in addition to
4
gravity load design considerations, Chapter 21 of the 2008 ACI Building Code requires
√ (psi) over at least four times the slab thickness from the column faces,
unless either 1) the shear stress demand due to gravity shear and moment transferred in
the connection at the design lateral displacement, calculated according to the eccentric
shear stress model in Chapter 11, does not exceed the design shear strength of the
connection, or 2) the design drift does not exceed the larger of 0.005 and [0.035-
0.05vug/(vc)], where vug is the shear stress due to gravity load and  = 0.75. ACI
Committee 318 recently approved the elimination of the combined shear stress check for
design of slab-column connections not part of the seismic-force-resisting system in
seismic design categories D, E and F. Assuming this change is published as approved in
the 2014 ACI Building Code, slab-column connections of these structures that do not
satisfy item 2) above would be required to have shear reinforcement proportioned such
that √ (psi).
Typical practice in the United States for connections with square or rectangular columns
consists of laying studs in a cruciform pattern, with stud rails perpendicular to each
column face. While the maximum spacing between studs within a peripheral line of
reinforcement increases as the peripheral line is farther from the column (governed by
distance between studs in rails framing into adjacent, perpendicular column faces), this
layout is possible because in the 2008 ACI Code peripheral stud spacing is only required
to be checked for the first stud peripheral line. In recently released recommendations by
ACI Committee 352 (2011), however, the 2d peripheral spacing limit also applies to the
second peripheral line. Further, the ACI Code spacing provisions contrast with those in
the Eurocode (Comité Européen de Normalisation, 2004), where a maximum spacing
limit of 1.5d is applied to several peripheral lines of studs, and a limit is also imposed to
the width of the slab engaged by the shear studs. The result is thus a more uniform
distribution of shear reinforcement around the column compared to that obtained
following a cruciform pattern.
5
1.4. Research Motivation and Objectives
As reported in Cheng et al. (2010), three large-scale slab-column connection
subassemblies were previously tested under combined gravity load and biaxial lateral
displacements. The slab tensile reinforcement ratio in the column strip was 0.6% based
on the slab overall thickness and 0.7% based on the slab average effective depth. Shear
reinforcement for two of the specimens was provided in the form of discontinuous
hooked steel fibers, whereas the connection of the third specimen was reinforced with
shear stud reinforcement for comparison. The specimen reinforced with shear stud
reinforcement, Specimen SB3, was designed according to ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee
318 2008) to resist shear stresses on the critical section due to concentric shear and
moment transferred between the slab and column. A transfer moment of 1500 kip-in. was
used to design the shear studs because that was approximately the transfer moment
exhibited by the fiber reinforced concrete specimens at 2% drift. A gravity shear ratio of
approximately 50% was maintained throughout the test. Gravity shear ratio is defined as
the ratio of shear induced by gravity loads, calculated at a critical section at d/2 from the
column faces, to the nominal punching shear strength of the connection, where d is the
average slab effective depth. The shear reinforcement consisted of two shear stud rail
assemblies placed perpendicular to each column face with eight 3/8 in. diameter shear
studs on each rail spaced at 0.75d (3.5 in.). This connection detail is shown in Figure 1-4.
Specimen SB3 exhibited surprisingly poor performance. As shown in Figure 1-5, the
connection failed in punching while being cycled at a drift of 1.15% in each principal
loading direction (1.65% resultant drift due to biaxial displacements). This was an
unexpectedly low inter-story drift that could reasonably be exceeded during a strong
earthquake. As can be seen in Figure 1-6, which shows part of the failure surface in
Specimen SB3, a steep crack that crossed the second peripheral row of studs led to the
failure of the specimen. Once this diagonal crack developed, the studs were not capable
of bridging this crack as a breakout failure of the concrete occurred. Peak shear stress due
to direct shear and moment transfer between the slab and the column on the critical
perimeter, calculated according to the ACI Building Code (ACI Committee 318 2008),
was 3.97√ (psi) and 4.29√ (psi) in each principal lateral loading direction. These
6
stresses are similar to the nominal shear stress capacity in ACI 318-08 for connections
with the geometry tested and no shear reinforcement (4√ [psi]). Based on the failure
mode exhibited by Specimen SB3, it appears the provided shear stud reinforcement did
not contribute to either shear strength or drift capacity of the connection.
The performance of Specimen SB3 reported in Cheng et al. (2010) has raised serious
concerns about the effectiveness of shear stud reinforcement when used in amounts near
the minimum specified in the 2008 and 2011 ACI Building Codes for cases in which a
combined shear stress check is performed, and consequently the vulnerability of a large
number of slab-column connections with headed shear reinforcement. To the writers’
knowledge, prior to the research reported herein, Specimen SB3 was the first and only
test of a slab-column connection with shear stud reinforcement subjected to combined
gravity load and biaxial lateral displacements. The other connection tests with shear stud
reinforcement under biaxial lateral displacements known to the writers, reported by Tan
and Teng 2005, included a supporting element with an aspect ratio of 5, which
corresponds more to a wall than a column. There is thus need for experimental data on
the behavior of slab-column connections with various configurations of shear stud
reinforcement in order to better evaluate the adequacy of the ACI Building Code
requirements for the design of slab-column connections that are not part of the lateral-
force-resisting system in structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F.
The objective of the research reported herein was therefore to investigate the
effectiveness of various configurations of shear stud reinforcement at increasing the drift
capacity of slab-column connections in structures subjected to ground motions. For this
purpose, four large-scale slab-column connections were tested under combined gravity
load and biaxial lateral displacements. With the exception of the shear reinforcement
used in the slab-column connection region, each specimen was nominally identical to
Specimen SB3 (Cheng et al. 2010) and tested using the same experimental set up and
following the same loading protocol.
7
2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
2.1. Overall Specimen Configuration

Four nearly full-scale slab-column subassemblies with identical geometry were tested
under combined gravity loading and biaxial lateral displacements. Specimen design was
based on a previous experimental investigation (Cheng et al. 2010). Elevation views of
the specimen are shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2. Each specimen consisted of a 17 ft
square, 6 in. thick slab supported on top of a full-story 16 in. square column with a clear
height of 10 ft-3 in. The column extended 5 ft above the slab. The column base was fixed
to a 63 in. x 63 in. x 32 in. heavily reinforced concrete base block. A 42 in. x 42 in. x 16
in. top block was cast monolithically on top of the second half-story column for
application of lateral displacements. A point of inflection was controlled at the top of the
top block.
The clear span-to-depth ratio of the slab, 31.3, is close to 33, the limit defined in Table
9.5(c) of the 2008 ACI Building Code for two-way slabs not checked for deflections.
Further, data obtained from Cary Kopcyznski & Company indicate that this ratio is
consistent with typical clear span-to-depth ratios for slabs designed by that office. It is
therefore believed the specimens are representative of typical reinforced concrete two-
way slab construction. It should be mentioned, however, that the dimensions of the
specimens were not intended to represent prestressed (e.g., post-tensioned) slabs, which
are generally more slender.
The slab was vertically supported by hydraulic actuators at each corner. The connection
detail between each vertical actuator and the slab is shown in Figure 2-3. In order to
reduce slab edge vertical deflections and thus make the slab edge support conditions
closer to a continuous roller support, steel tube sections were fastened to the slab along its
perimeter with two rows of 3/4 in. threaded rods spaced at 12 in., as shown in Figure 2-4.
Even though it was not possible to realistically simulate the boundary conditions along
the slab perimeter, the slab dimensions were large enough (distance from inner edge of
8
steel tube to closest column face was equal to 12.7 slab thicknesses or 76 in.) to minimize
any significant effect on connection behavior.
2.2. Specimen Design

The slab-column connection in the test specimens was designed assuming it is not part of
the seismic-force-resisting system. The magnitudes of dead and live loads used in design
were determined such that the average shear stress on the critical section of the
connection (at d/2 from the column faces) was equal to √ (psi) (gravity shear ratio of
0.50) for a ratio between dead and live load of 2. The load combination used for
calculation of the gravity shear stress (and gravity shear ratio) was 1.2D+0.5L, as
specified in Section 21.13.6 of ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) for structures
other than “garages, areas occupied as places of public assembly, and all areas where L is
greater than 100 lb/ft2.” For design purposes, the compressive strength of concrete and
yield strength of the reinforcement were assumed to be 5,000 psi and 60 ksi, respectively.
Moments used in the slab design were determined based on the calculated dead and live
load intensities using the Direct Design Method outlined in Section 13.6 of ACI 318-08
(ACI Committee 318 2008). The reinforcement layouts were nominally identical in each
principal direction with an average effective depth, d, of 4.75 in. The reinforcement
design resulted in No. 4 bars spaced at 6 in. in the column strip, which corresponded to a
tensile reinforcement ratio of 0.6% based on the slab overall thickness and 0.7% based on
the slab average effective depth. This is close to design data for reinforced concrete two-
way slabs obtained from Cary Kopczynski & Company, in which tension reinforcement
ratios ranging between 0.0065 and 0.0075, based on the slab thickness, have been used.
An elevation view of the specimen reinforcement is shown in Figure 2-5 and the slab
bottom and top reinforcement layouts are shown in Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7,
respectively.
Per Section 13.3.8.5 of ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008), the slabs were provided
with two continuous bottom bars in each direction that passed through the column core.
These bars are referred to as “integrity steel” and are intended to transfer slab gravity
9
loads to the column after punching occurs at the connection to prevent partial or
progressive collapse. As illustrated in Figure 2-8, after the slab drops, this reinforcement
allows gravity loads to be resisted through catenary action.
The test specimens were nominally identical except for the shear reinforcement design at
the slab-column connections. The reinforcement of each specimen, along with other slab
properties, is summarized in Table 2-1.
All four connections were designed to resist shear stresses on the critical perimeter
induced by gravity loads (corresponding to a 50% gravity shear ratio) and expected
moment transferred into the column (so-called “unbalanced” moment), according to ACI
318-08 Section 21.13.6(a). A moment transfer of 1400 kip-in was assumed for design
based on results from Specimen SB3 reported in Cheng et al. (2010), which was a
reinforced concrete slab-column connection with the same flexural reinforcement layout.
The calculations for shear reinforcement design in Specimens B1 and B2 can be found in
Appendix A. Stud rails for Specimens B1 and B2 were arranged in a cruciform pattern,
with rails placed orthogonally to each column face. This is the arrangement typically used
in the United States to minimize interference with slab flexural reinforcement. Both
connections had twelve 3/8 in. diameter studs in each peripheral row of shear
reinforcement (three rails per column face). On each column face, adjacent rails were
equally spaced, with two placed at the outer edges of the column, and the remaining rail
placed at the center of the column face. The design for Specimen B1 was based on the
assumption of zero concrete contribution to shear capacity (vc = 0), resulting in a shear
stud spacing perpendicular to each column face of 0.5d, or 2-3/8 in. It should be
mentioned that at the time the test specimens were designed, recent changes to code
design provisions had not yet been adopted (see Section 1.3). The connection and stud
rail assembly details for Specimen B1 are shown Figure 2-9.
Specimen B2 was provided with shear reinforcement such that vs = √ (psi)

extending at least 4h (24 in.) away from the column face. This is the minimum amount of
shear reinforcement that is required by Section 21.13.6 of the ACI Building Code (ACI
Committee 318 2008) if no shear stress or drift capacity check is performed as outlined in
10
Section 21.13.6(a) and (b), respectively. This resulted in a shear stud spacing
perpendicular to each column face of 0.75d, or 3-1/2 in. Complete connection details for
Specimen B2 are shown in Figure 2-10.
Specimen B3 was reinforced with the same number of stud rails with the same stud
spacing as Specimen B1 (twelve rails with 3/8 in. diameter studs spaced at 0.5d);
however, four of the twelve stud rails were placed at the column corners, oriented at a 45
degree angle to the column faces. The other eight rails were placed perpendicular to the
column faces (two per column face). This type of rail configuration is often utilized in
European construction (Broms 2007a). The orthogonal rails on each column face were
placed such that studs in the second peripheral row of shear reinforcement were spaced at
approximately 1.5d around the perimeter of the column. The concept of this arrangement
was to increase the size of the shear reinforced area in the connection region and limit the
maximum stud spacing in each peripheral row of shear reinforcement. The maximum
stud spacing was kept below 2d in the first three peripheral rows of shear studs. Full
connection details for Specimen B3 are shown in Figure 2-11.
A total of 20 shear stud assemblies were used in the connection of Specimen B4 (Figure
2-12) with sixteen shear stud assemblies placed orthogonally to the column faces. Of
those sixteen, eight were placed (two per column face) 6 in. apart, centered on each face
of the column. The other eight orthogonally oriented rails (two per column face) were
placed 15 in. apart, centered on the column face (1/2 in. away from the column corners).
These rails were also placed such that the first stud on each assembly was in line with the
second peripheral row of shear reinforcement. As in Specimen B3, one rail was placed at
each column corner at a 45-degree angle to the faces of the column. In order to minimize
interference with slab reinforcement, the stud spacing on these radially placed assemblies
was increased by a factor of √ so that the studs would lie on an orthogonal grid. The
concept of this connection was to further decrease the maximum stud spacing in each
peripheral row of studs compared to that in Specimen B3. In Specimen B4, the fourth
peripheral row of shear studs was the last row to have a maximum stud spacing less than
2d.
11
Stud rails used in Specimens B1 and B2 were provided by the same supplier. During a
post-test inspection of Specimen B2, several studs were found to have fractured from the
base rail at the weld, which led to use of a different supplier for the stud rails used in
Specimens B3 and B4. There were minor differences in the assemblies provided by each
supplier. The cross sections of base rails from the first and second suppliers were 1/4 in. x
1-1/4 in. and 3/16 in. x 1 in., respectively, while the stud dimensions were identical.
The column was designed to resist all anticipated axial loads and bending moments. An
axial load of approximately 200 kips was assumed throughout the test: 140 kips applied
to the top of the specimen by the crosshead to simulate weight from the stories above for
a first story column in a typical structure, and 60 kips of gravity shear being transferred
from the slab to the column. The total applied axial load amounted to approximately
0.15Agfc’, where Ag is the gross cross sectional area of the column. The flexural demands
on the column were previously estimated (Cheng and Parra-Montesinos 2009) based on a
2-D slab-column frame model constructed following the recommendations in Hueste and
Wight (1999). Flexural demands in this new series of tests, however, were obtained from
the results of tests reported in Cheng et al. (2010).
The column was designed with Bressler’s Reciprocal Load Method (Bresler 1960). The
resulting longitudinal reinforcement consisted of twelve No. 6 bars with 90-degree hooks
at each end (Figure 2-5). Transverse reinforcement consisted of No. 3 closed-hoop
stirrups spaced at 3 in. in accordance with ACI 318-08 Section 21.6.4 (ACI Committee
318 2008). The longitudinal column reinforcement in each specimen was spliced using
mechanical splices shown to satisfy Type 2 seismic splice requirements. In Specimens
B1, B2, and B3, threaded screw-type mechanical splices were used to splice six column
bars 3 ft below the bottom of the slab and the other six bars 5 ft below the bottom of the
slab. In Specimen B4, six bars were spliced 6 ft below the bottom of the slab and six bars
were spliced 7 ft below the bottom of the slab. Column reinforcement in Specimen B4
was spliced using bar-lock type mechanical couplers. Although it is unusual to splice
column reinforcement below the slab, this was done to simplify specimen construction
and was not expected to alter the behavior of the specimen.
12
There were problems with consolidation of the concrete in the first-story column of
Specimen B4. To address the honeycombing evident after removal of the formwork, all
of the concrete in the first story of the column was removed using hand tools and
jackhammers. Special care was taken to avoid damaging the column reinforcement. The
column concrete was then re-cast.
The base and top blocks were designed to resist loads corresponding to the specimen
reaching its capacity. The reinforcement designs for the base and top blocks are shown in
Figure 2-13 and Figure 2-14, respectively.
2.3. Specimen Instrumentation

2.3.1. Strain Gauges
A total of 74 strain gauges were applied to flexural reinforcing bars in the slab. Figure
2-15 and Figure 2-16 show the strain gauge layouts in the top and bottom mats of slab
reinforcement. Gauges were labeled such that “T” refers to gauges on top mat
reinforcement, and “B” refers to gauges on bottom mat reinforcement. The second
character indicates the direction the bar is laid. Gauges with a second character “E” are
on bars laid longitudinally in the East-West, or Y, direction; gauges with an “S” are on
reinforcing bars laid longitudinally in the North-South, or X, direction. The specific
locations of individual gauges on top and bottom mat reinforcement can be described by
two distances, t and l (Figure 2-17). The variable t is the transverse distance (in the X
direction for ‘TE’ and ‘BE’ gauges, and in the Y-direction for ‘TS’ and ‘BS’ gauges) of
the individual bar from the center of the column, and l indicates the location of a gauge
on an individual bar as measured from the center of the column in the direction parallel to
the bar. Gauges were applied to several bars in both the top and bottom mat of
reinforcement in one of five bar locations, l, equal to 0 in., ±(b+d)/2 (±10-3/8 in.) and
±(b+5d)/2 (±19-7/8 in.), where b is defined as the width of the column (16 in.). Top and
bottom strain gauge layouts were identical in each principal direction. The coordinates, t
and l (with subscripts indicating the direction of each measurement) for each gauge are
listed in Table 2-2.
13
Strain gauges were also placed on the northwest and southwest corner longitudinal bars
of each column 1 in. and 7 in. from the base (Figure 2-18). These gauges allowed for
yielding of the reinforcement at the column base, which was expected to occur during the
later cycles of the tests, to be monitored.
Strain gauges were placed on the shanks of several shear studs in each specimen. On
instrumented studs, gauges were placed 2 in. from the top of the base rail (approximately
mid-height on the stud) to measure the longitudinal strain in the stud. Each connection
had a slightly different shear stud rail arrangement; therefore, the instrumentation plans
for the rails were different as well. Instrumentation plans for Specimens B1, B2, B3, and
B4 can be found, respectively, in Figure 2-19 to Figure 2-22, where instrumented studs
are marked by black dots.
2.3.2. Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs)

Slab deformations across distances of 1d and 2d from the column face were measured by
LVDTs located as shown in Figure 2-23. The slab rotation at each section, relative to the
column rotation, was calculated in radians by taking the difference in displacement
between top and bottom horizontal LVDTs, and dividing it by the vertical distance
between the two instruments.
In Specimens B2, B3, and B4, an LVDT was mounted vertically in the corner of each
face of the column on the underside of the slab. These LVDTs were used to monitor the
vertical drop of the slab throughout the test. All locations of LVDTs in the slab region are
shown in Figure 2-23. Specimen B1 did not have LVDTs labeled L-Z (i.e., LVDTs to
measure slab drop).
Column base rotations 14 in. (approximately the effective depth of the column) from the
top of the base block were calculated from data collected with LVDTs mounted on each
face of the column, as shown in Figure 2-24. Column base rotations (in radians) were
calculated by dividing the difference in displacement measured by LVDTs placed on
opposite column faces by the distance between LVDTs.
14
For all specimens, two LVDTs were mounted to the strong floor to monitor slipping of
the base block, as shown in Figure 2-25.
2.3.3. String Potentiometers

On the north and west faces of the laboratory’s strong wall, four string potentiometers
were mounted at mid-slab height and connected to the negative X and Y faces of the slab.
String potentiometers were used to measure the lateral displacement of the slab edges in
the X and Y directions, as shown in Figure 2-26.
2.3.4. Telepresence
Photographs of the top and bottom of the connection region were collected by four
telepresence towers placed at the corners of the testing area. Photos were taken at corner
points on the cloverleaf of each loading cycle (Figure 2-28) and also upon the completion
of a drift cycle.
2.4. Material Properties

2.4.1. Concrete
Concrete for all specimens was supplied by a local ready mix supplier. The same mixture
design was used throughout the project. The concrete was specified to have a
compressive strength of 5000 psi, a slump of 6 in., and maximum aggregate size of 3/8
in. The resulting mixture proportions by weight of cement, water, sand, and 3/8 in.
bedrock aggregate were 1:0.48:2.05:2.5, respectively.
The minimum slump of 6 in. was verified on site prior to placing the concrete to ensure
sufficient workability and flow. The measured compressive strength of the concrete used
on various locations of each specimen was taken as the average of three 4 in. x 8 in.
concrete cylinders tested according to ASTM C39 (ASTM Standard C39 2012). The
results are shown in Table 2-3. Three cylinders cast with concrete used in each slab were
tested one day prior to the testing of each connection to determine the load required to
induce a 50% gravity shear ratio in the connection. The other concrete cylinders were
tested after the specimen test and approximately 90 days after the day of casting. All
15
cylinders were kept in their molds at room temperature next to the slab specimens until
testing.
2.4.2. Reinforcing Steel

The reinforcing bars for each specimen, except for the longitudinal steel in the column,
were purchased from a local supplier. The longitudinal steel in column was mechanically
spliced within the first story, as discussed in Section 2.2. All reinforcing bars were
uncoated Grade 60 steel compliant with ASTM A615, Type 2, requirements (ASTM
Standard A615 2009). The yield and ultimate strengths of the reinforcing bars used in
each specimen were determined through tests of three 2-ft long bars of each size in
accordance with ASTM A370 (ASTM Standard A370 2012). Reinforcement coupons
were tested without modification or removal of deformations. The average yield and
ultimate strengths calculated from each set of three test bars are listed in Table 2-4. For
Specimens B1 and B2, no additional pieces of No. 3 and No. 5 reinforcing bars were
available for testing; therefore the yield and ultimate strengths are not listed in Table 2-4.
2.4.3. Shear Stud Reinforcement

For Specimens B1 and B2, shear stud reinforcement was provided by VSL Post-
Tensioning. The studs were made with steel specified to have a minimum yield strength
of 55 ksi. This value was not verified independently, but documentation provided by VSL
indicated the yield and ultimate stress of the steel studs were 70.0 and 79.8 ksi,
respectively. A different vendor, SRL Industries, donated shear stud reinforcement for
Specimens B3 and B4 after failure of several of the stud welds in Specimen B2 were
discovered. The steel used to manufacture the studs provided by SRL Industries, and used
in Specimens B3 and B4, was specified to have a minimum yield strength of 55 ksi. This
value was not verified.
2.5. Test Activities

2.5.1. Pretest Activities
Upon moving the test specimen to its final location on the laboratory strong floor, a 1/4
in. thick layer of grout was placed between the base block and strong floor to ensure an
16
even contact surface between the specimen and the strong floor prior to pretensioning the
specimen down to the floor. After 24 hours, the specimen was anchored to the strong
floor using twelve 1.5 in. diameter threaded rods posttensioned to 100 kips.
Approximately one week before testing, a 1/4 in. thick layer of grout was placed between
the top block and crosshead. The grout was given 24 hours to cure before the specimen
top block was fastened to the crosshead with sixteen 1.5 in. diameter threaded rods
posttensioned to 75 kips.
One day prior to testing, all four ancillary actuators were connected to the specimen at
each slab corner with four 0.75 in. threaded rods (Figure 2-3) tensioned with a spud
wrench.
2.5.2. Loading Methods

Loads and displacements at the top of the column were applied by a “rigid” steel
crosshead connected to the specimen top block (Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The
crosshead was driven by four horizontal actuators (two in each principal direction), and
four vertical actuators. Vertical actuators attached to the crosshead are only shown in
Figure 2-2. The system operates with a six degree-of-freedom control system, and is
capable of applying up to 1320 kips of vertical force, and nearly 900 kip of horizontal
force in each principal direction. In addition, four ancillary actuators were installed on the
strong floor and connected to the underside of all four corners of the slab (Figure 2-1).
A constant slab gravity load (in addition to the self-weight of the slab) was simulated
with four prestressing stands (1/2 in. diameter, Grade 270, 7-wire, low-relaxation strands)
pulling down at mid-points on each side of the slab. Beneath the slab, strands were
fastened with strand chucks bearing on the underside of brackets installed on the strong
floor located directly below each strand. On top of the slab, each strand passed through a
hydraulic jack and was fastened with a strand chuck bearing on the top of a load cell that
rested on top of the jack. All hydraulic jacks were fed by the same pump to achieve a
uniform pressure in each jack, thus an equal tension in each strand. Elevation and plan
17
views showing the location of all of the applied slab loads are shown in Figure 2-27.
Ancillary actuators forces are labeled A1, A2, A3, and A4.
As in any test of a structural component, the test setup used in this study was not a perfect
representation of structures found in practice. In particular, use of actuators to support the
boundary of the slab prevented the sagging of the slab expected in a real structure as
connection damage progresses. However, given the large distance between the center of
the slab supports and the column face (13.7h, where h is the slab thickness), and because
care was taken to impose realistic shear and moment demands on the connection, it is
believed the effect of the slab edge support on connection deformation demands was
minimal.
The method used for simulating gravity load in the test program reported herein was
substantially different than those used in many previous test programs of slab-column
connections, particularly those in slabs with shear stud reinforcement. For comparison, in
most previous tests of slab connections reinforced with shear studs, the desired
connection shear was generated by jacking the column while the slab boundary was
restrained. While convenient, the jacking method has important drawbacks. These
include an unrealistic moment-shear relationship in the slab and the need to further jack
the column to maintain gravity shear, which could lead to connection deformations far
from those expected in a structure subjected to earthquake-induced lateral displacements.
Information on test setups used by various investigators can be found in Cheng and Parra-
Montesinos (2009).
Maintaining a constant gravity shear force throughout the test was important; thus, the
force in each strand was closely monitored using the following redundant measurements
(listed in order of precision). 1) Load cells - At each strand location a load cell was
fastened between the strand chuck and hydraulic jack. 2) Strain gauges - Prior to testing,
three strain gauges were placed on separate wires of the strands approximately five feet
from the bottom end of the strand. The load-strain relationship for each strain gauge was
found by cycling each strand several times between 8 and 20 kips (the anticipated load
range for testing). The strand force was taken to be the average force calculated from all
18
three gauges for each strand. 3.) Pressure gauge - While pumping the hydraulic jacks, the
total applied gravity force was determined as a function of the pump pressure. The pump
pressure reading was only accessible while pumping, and was lost after valves on the
pump were closed. Cycling would only proceed if the load cells, strain gauges, and
pressure gauge reported similar strand load values.
2.5.3. Loading Protocol

With the crosshead X and Y degrees of freedom locked in displacement control, an axial
load of 140 kips (approximately 0.10Agf’c) was applied to the column. This load was
intended to simulate the weight of the stories above a typical first-story column. During
the application of the column axial load, ancillary actuators located at the corners of the
slab were held in load control at zero kips and were allowed to displace with the slab.
After applying axial load to the column, ancillary actuators were switched to
displacement control to maintain a constant elevation at the corners of the slab for the
remainder of the test. Gravity load in addition to the slab self-weight was then applied to
the slab such that an average shear stress of 2√ (psi) (gravity shear ratio of 50%) was
attained on the critical section of the connection (at d/2 from each column face).
Equilibrium was used to calculate the concentric shear stress acting on the connection.
The value of used for calculating the target shear stress was based on the average
compressive strength of three 4 in. x 8 in. concrete cylinders broken on the day prior to
slab testing, as discussed in Section 2.4.1. The required applied gravity loads for each
specimen, corresponding to a 50% gravity shear ratio, are shown in Table 2-5. Prior to
undergoing the first drift cycle, the moments at the top block about the X and Y axes
were locked in load control at zero kip-ft for the remainder of the test to simulate an
inflection point at the top of the column top block.
Lateral displacements were then applied at the top block through the crosshead. The
displacement path for each drift cycle followed a clover leaf pattern as shown in Figure
2-28. Target drifts for each cycle are listed in Table 2-6 and plotted in Figure 2-28.
Maximum resultant drifts due to biaxial effects occurred at corner points on the
cloverleaf.
19
The lateral inter-story drift ratio is defined as the relative lateral displacement of floor
slabs in consecutive stories in a building as a percentage of the height of the respective
story. The ACI Building Code defines the design story drift ratio as the larger of the story
drift ratios of adjacent stories above and below the slab-column connection (ACI
Committee 318 2011). In this study, the primary measure of drift, , was taken as the drift
of the entire 1.5 stories of the specimen. This was calculated as
(2.1)
where the height of the specimen was taken as 205 in., calculated as the total height of
the subassembly (237 in.), minus the height of the foundation block (32 in.). For
comparison, the drift experienced over the top half-story, , and bottom story,  were
also calculated as follows:
(2.2)
(2.3)
The total applied displacement was controlled by the movement of the crosshead. The
slab displacement used for calculation in Eqn. (2.2) was taken as the average
measurement of two string potentiometers monitoring lateral displacements at mid-height
of the slab in each principal loading direction (see Section 2.3.3 and Figure 2-26). A
value of 79 in. was used as the second half-story height, calculated as the sum of one half
of the slab thickness (3 in.), the height of the second-story column (60 in.), and the height
of the top block (16 in.). The height of the first story (126 in.) was taken as the sum of the
height of the first story column (123 in.) and one half of the slab thickness (3 in.).
Throughout each drift cycle, a steady, but relatively small decrease in the applied gravity
load was observed (due to specimen damage, slab settlement, and/or strand relaxation).
At the end of each drift cycle, the strands were reloaded to forces corresponding to the
20
target gravity shear ratio. In the higher drift cycles, however, when a substantial amount
of the gravity shear had diminished (approximately 20% of the target gravity shear) as the
slab accumulated more damage throughout a cycle, the cycle was paused and loads in the
strands were adjusted to reestablish the target gravity shear ratio before resuming the test.
The test was terminated when significant damage had developed in the slab at the
connection. In the case of Specimens B1 and B2, the test was terminated when the
gravity load could no longer be transferred through the slab-column connection. The test
of Specimen B3 was terminated when extensive connection damage led to significant
twisting of the slab relative to the column. Testing of Specimen B4 was terminated after
the slab had dropped considerably relative to the column and resulted in an unrealistic
shift of applied gravity loads to the slab boundary supports.
21
3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Results from experiments performed on four large-scale slab-column subassemblies,

Specimens B1, B2, B3, and B4, are discussed in this chapter. Each section is focused on a
specific specimen response, described using data collected from instrumentation and
photographs taken throughout the test.
In Section 3.1, a discussion of visual damage progression of each specimen throughout

the test is provided. Visually observed failure surface of each specimen, and any other
details uncovered after completion of testing that explained specimen behavior, are
discussed in Section 3.2.
The following five sections (Sections 3.3 through 3.11) deal with interpretation and
discussion of data collected from instrumentation, related in particular with specimen
hysteresis behavior, gravity shear history, peak shear stress on connection critical section,
and strains in shear studs and slab flexural bars.
3.1. Damage Progression

3.1.1. Specimen B1
Narrow flexural cracks were first observed on top of the slab during the 0.25% drift
cycle, very close to the west face of the column. After completion of the 0.45% drift
cycle, flexural cracks were visible near all sides of the column. Small cracks extending
from the column corners towards the slab corners, approximately 2d in length, also
formed during the 0.45% drift cycle. By the end of the 0.90% drift cycle, flexural cracks
on each side of the connection had become much wider. Crack widths, however, could
not be measured throughout the test because of safety concerns.
During the 1.15% drift cycle, small cracks began to form underneath the slab, extending
orthogonally from the faces of the column. Through the 1.60% drift cycle, cracking on
top of the slab became more widespread in regions farther away from the connection
22
(>2d), especially in the southwest corner of the connection. The first punching shear
related crack was observed on the east face of the slab during the 1.85% drift cycle at
Point 8 in the cloverleaf load pattern, as shown in Figure 3-1. At Point 5 of the 2.30%
drift cycle, punching shear related damage had propagated along the west, south and east
faces of the connection. After returning to zero lateral displacement, the test was
terminated because the specimen could no longer support gravity loads. A photograph of
the south-west side of the connection at this loading stage is shown in Figure 3-2. An
approximately 1 in. vertical settlement of the slab was also observed. In the northeast and
northwest corners of the connection, long cracks were observed in the slab that extended
from the column corners approximately 36 in. toward their respective corners of the slab.
The punching shear failure that developed around the west, south and east faces of the
column did not develop in the north portion of the slab. North of the column, only the
bottom cover of the slab dropped relative to the column (see Section 3.2.1 for further
discussion). The inclined crack on the northeast corner of the face of the connection is
shown in Figure 3-3.
3.1.2. Specimen B2
Flexural cracks in the slab of Specimen B2 were first observed near the slab-column
interface during the 0.25% drift cycle. During the 0.70% drift cycle, cracks formed on top
of the slab, emanating from the column corners and extending toward the corners of the
slab. These cracks were approximately 2d in length. Damage on the bottom of the slab
was first noticed during the 0.90% drift cycle, which consisted of narrow cracks
extending orthogonally from the west face of the column. On the bottom surface of the
slab, cover concrete at the slab-column interface also began to spall on all faces. After the
1.40% drift cycle had been completed, the bottom surface of the slab was observed to
have dropped approximately 1/8 in. relative to the column. This estimation was based on
the position of the slab relative to lines drawn on the column surface prior to testing at
distances of 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and 1” below the bottom surface of the slab (Figure 3-4).
Cracks on the top of the slab had also become significantly wider during the 1.40% drift
cycle.
23
The first cracks associated with punching developed during the 1.85% drift cycle at Point
8, and can be seen in Figure 3-5 on the north east face of the connection. By the end of
the 1.85% drift cycle, the bottom of the slab had dropped approximately 0.25 in. down
the column. The failure surface appeared to have formed around the entire perimeter of
the connection.
While moving from Point 1 to Point 2 at the 2.30% drift cycle, the slab dropped abruptly.
Upon reaching Point 2, the bottom of the slab had dropped approximately 3/4 in. on the
south and west sides of the connection. The failure surface at this point is shown in
Figure 3-6. There was a significant decrease in applied gravity load as a consequence of
the slab dropping, releasing some of the force in the prestressing strands. At this point, an
attempt was made to reload the prestressing strands to attain the target gravity shear into
the connection prior to resuming lateral displacements. While loading the slab, the
bottom of the slab began to drop in the north and east regions, resulting in a total drop of
3/4 in. around the entire perimeter of the connection. After returning the specimen to zero
lateral displacement, the test was terminated.
3.1.3. Specimen B3
By the end of the 0.25% drift cycle imposed on Specimen B3, flexural cracks near the
column were observed on all faces of the connection on the top side of the slab. During
the 0.45% drift cycle, cracks approximately 3d in length developed in the slab, which
emanated from each column corner and extended towards their respective slab corners.
Cracking beneath the slab was first noticed while loading at the 0.90% drift cycle.
Flexural cracks on the top of the slab had also begun to widen in this drift cycle.
During the 1.40% drift cycle, concrete cover began to spall from the bottom surface of
the slab at the column interface. Punching shear related cracking first appeared on the
west face of the connection, approximately 2d away from the column face after loading
to Point 2 during the 1.85% drift cycle. Figure 3-7 shows the damage on the north-west
corner of the connection at Point 5 of the loading cycle to 1.85% drift. During the cycle
to 2.30% drift, punching shear-related damage was severe and extended nearly the entire
connection perimeter (Figure 3-8) There was also a nearly 1/4 in. vertical drop of the slab
24
observed on the underside of the connection. The slab continued to slide down the
column during the remainder of the cycle, resulting in a total drop of more than 1 in. by
the end of the 2.30% drift cycle. Also during the 2.30% drift cycle, the slab began to twist
around the axis of the column as damage accumulated in the connection. At the end of
the 2.30% drift cycle, the slab had rotated 1.5 radians about the vertical axis, relative to
the column. The cycle to 2.75% drift was initiated, but the test was terminated after
reaching Point 4 due to excessive relative twisting between the slab and the column
(approximately 11 radians at termination of the test).
3.1.4. Specimen B4
As observed during the tests of Specimens B1, B2, and B3, flexural cracking was first
observed in Specimen B4 during the 0.25% drift cycle. Cracks approximately 3d in
length, extending from each column corner toward its respective slab corner, formed in
the 0.45% drift cycle. Underneath the slab, small cracks orthogonal to the column faces
formed during the 0.90% drift cycle. At Point 11 of the 1.15% drift cycle, cover had
begun to spall from the bottom of the slab on the north and west sides of the slab-column
interface. Flexural cracks located within 2d of the column face began to widen during the
1.60% drift cycle.
The first punching shear-related cracks where observed when loading to Point 11 during
the 1.85% drift cycle, located approximately 2d from the west and south column faces
(Figure 3-9). As shown in Figure 3-10, after loading to Point 8 of the ensuing 2.30% drift
cycle, punching shear-related damage had extended around the entire perimeter of the
column. By the end of this cycle, the slab had dropped a total of approximately 1 in. from
its original position. Specimen B4 was cycled at the 2.70% drift level to investigate the
post-punching behavior of the connection. Throughout the cycle, the slab dropped
approximately 1 additional inch (2 in. total).
25
3.2. Observations After Completion of Testing
After completion of each test, the loose concrete was removed from the connection in
order to better inspect the condition of the connections. Observations made during the
post-test inspection of each connection are discussed in the following sections.
3.2.1. Specimen B1
Failure of Specimen B1 was caused by a combination of severe concrete degradation in
the region adjacent to the west, south and east column faces, and two long diagonal
cracks that initiated at the north-west and north-east column corners and extended
approximately 36 in. toward their respective corner of the slab, as illustrated in Figure
3-11. A photograph showing one of these inclined cracks is shown in Figure 3-3.
Sectional slab views of the slab, also shown in Figure 3-11, show more details of the
damage in the connection of Specimen B1. In Figure 3-11, section cuts A-A and B-B
show how the inclined crack at the north-west corner of the connection penetrated
through the depth of the slab and continued below the bottom flexural reinforcement
along the north column face. As can be seen in Figure 3-11, the inclined cracks at the
north-west and north-east corners of the column split the slab into two pieces. The entire
slab piece south of the inclined cracks and the cover concrete from the north piece slid
down the column, while the north slab piece did not. In Figure 3-12, it is shown that the
stud rail orthogonal to the east face of the column dropped approximately 1 in., while the
stud rail orthogonal to the north face did not drop to a measurable extent. Because only
stud rails orthogonal to each column face were used in Specimen B1, shear studs on the
north side of the connection were not engaged by the failure surface.
Severe concrete degradation was observed on the east, south and west regions of the
connection. In Figure 3-13, the east face of the connection is shown after all loose
concrete was removed following completion of the test. The north section of the
connection, meanwhile, was relatively solid (Figure 3-14), as the inclined cracks
emanating from the north-west and north-east corners of the column tended to “isolate”
the portion of the slab framing directly into the north column face. The severe concrete
degradation observed on the east, south and west sides of the connection indicates that
the shear studs, while potentially being active in bridging diagonal cracks, did not
26
provide the confinement necessary to maintain the integrity of the concrete at the column
faces to allow shear transfer through diagonal struts and the slab compression zone. As
shown in Figure 3-13, the studs on the east side of the connection were only capable of
maintaining the integrity of the concrete in between and immediately adjacent to the stud
heads, while the concrete regions in between stud rails showed severe degradation. In
cases where the head of the first stud in each orthogonal row rested directly on top of a
slab bar (Figure 3-13), it was observed that the slab bar effectively anchored the stud and
prevented significant drop of the slab at that particular location. Instead, significant
bending of the supporting rail and shear stud was often observed as adjacent studs away
from flexural bars dropped with the slab (in Figure 3-13, stud head rotation can be seen in
the first stud visible on the south face of the column).
3.2.2. Specimen B2
A sketch of the damage distribution in the connection of Specimen B2 is shown in Figure
3-15. The region shaded in grey on the east and north faces of the connection represents
an area where the slab concrete was found to be severely degraded during the post-test
investigation. This concrete had a loose gravel-like consistency and was easily removed
by hand after the test had been completed. Once all loose concrete was removed, what
remained was a traditional punching shear failure surface on the west and south faces of
the connection, and a completely void area within a distance d from the column face on
the north and east faces of the connection (the region shaded in grey on Figure 3-15), as
shown in Figure 3-16. As in Specimen B1, such degradation of concrete is indicative of
the lack of adequate confinement provided by the shear studs.
Several studs were also found to have fractured from the base rail at the weld. These
studs are indicted by black dots in Figure 3-15. In Figure 3-17, a view of the bottom slab
surface on the west face of the connection highlights damage to several shear stud
assemblies, including a severely bent base rail between the first and second shear studs
on the center shear stud assembly, and a stud that fractured from its base rail due to a
weld failure. The head of the first stud on the bent rail (shown in Figure 3-17) was
located within 1 inch of a top mat reinforcing bar, but was not resting directly on it.
27
The severe concrete degradation in the connection of Specimen B2 at the end of the test
did not allow an effective shear transfer mechanism between the slab and the column to
develop, resulting in the column punching through the slab. As the slab dropped, all rail
assemblies dropped with the slab with the exception of the center rail on the west face
(also the rail with the only engaged stud in the first peripheral row of studs), where the
rail dowelled between the first and second stud.
3.2.3. Specimen B3
The failure of Specimen B3 included severely degraded concrete in the slab within the
first two rows of studs (d from the column face) surrounding the column perimeter.
Similar to Specimens B1 and B2, the degraded concrete had a loose gravel-like
consistency. After all loose concrete was removed, there was a void space between the
slab and the column that penetrated through the entire depth of the slab. This void region
encircled the entire connection. A corner of the connection that was cleaned out of loose
concrete is shown in Figure 3-18. As can be seen in Figure 3-18, only the concrete within
the diameter of the head of a few studs remained which, as in Specimens B1 and B2, is
indicative of the poor confinement offered by the shear studs.
For the most part, rail assemblies dropped away from the connection along with the outer
slab region. The exception was a rail assembly whose first stud was anchored by one of
the slab bars passing through the column. In this particular case, the base rail dowelled
between the first and second shear stud, as shown in Figure 3-19. Unlike the other shear
stud assemblies, this rail likely contributed shear resistance even after the slab had begun
to drop significantly.
3.2.4. Specimen B4
Similar to the other test specimens, the failure of Specimen B4 included loose gravel-like
concrete in the slab surrounding the column perimeter. In Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21,
the north face of the connection is shown before and after all loose concrete had been
cleaned out of the section. The removal of concrete around this connection was more
difficult than in the three previous specimens, indicating more sound concrete at the end
28
of the test. This was likely due to the increased number and overall tighter spacing of
shear studs, which provided superior confinement to the concrete.
At the end of the test of Specimen B4, the slab had dropped approximately 3 in. from its
original position. All but one of the shear stud assemblies completely dropped away from
the column with the outer portion of the slab. The stud rail that stayed in place was
orthogonally placed to the south face of the column and is shown in Figure 3-22. This
stud rail dowelled between the first and second shear stud much like the assembly from
Specimen B3 shown in Figure 3-19. As in the other specimens, this was due to the first
shear stud being anchored by top mat flexural reinforcement that passed through the
column. It is again probable that unlike the other stud rails, this shear stud assembly
contributed to shear resistance even after the slab had begun to drop significantly.
3.3. Load Drift Response and Gravity Shear History

The load versus drift response of each specimen is plotted for each perpendicular loading
direction. Also plotted is the resultant force versus resultant drift due to biaxial loading.
Resultant drift R and resultant force FR were calculated throughout the test as,
√ (3.1)
√ (3.2)
Principal loading directions, X and Y, are defined with positive and negative X
corresponding with south and north, respectively, and positive and negative Y
corresponding with east and west, respectively. The same coordinate system was used for
each experiment.
As discussed in Section 2.5.3, the primary measure of drift used in this report is the drift
that was imposed on the entire 1.5 stories of the specimen, which was calculated using
Eqn. (2.1). For each specimen, the drift of the first story and second half-story of the
specimen were also calculated, using Eqs. (2.2) and (2.3). The drift calculated for the first
29
and second half-stories of Specimen B2 are plotted in Figure 3-23 along with the drift
calculated for the full 1.5 story specimen. The trends shown are typical of the four
specimens tested. First story drift was approximately 20% less than the full specimen
drift throughout the tests, whereas second half-story drift was approximately 20% greater.
In an attempt to approximate interstory drift, defined as the drift between column
inflection points, the location of the inflection point in the column was estimated using
equilibrium of forces applied to the specimen. The column inflection point was estimated
to be within ±20 inches of the bottom of the slab in all four specimens, but varied widely
within and between loading cycles. Due to the high variation, the estimated interstory
drift is not shown. However, given the approximate inflection point location, the
calculated interstory drift was more similar to second half-story drift than the drift
calculated for either the first story or full specimen. Load versus drift responses based on
first story and second half-story drift are reported in Appendix B.
As described in Section 2.1, the reinforced concrete slabs in these specimens were
relatively slender (clear span-to-depth ratio of 31.3, which is close to the limit defined in
Table 9.5(c) of the 2008 ACI Building Code for two-way slabs not checked for
deflections (33) and consistent with slenderness values used in design of reinforced
concrete flat plates). Because the slenderness of the slabs is representative of typical
reinforced concrete slab construction, and the columns are stiff relative to the slabs, it is
believed that slab deformations in the connection region of the test specimens at a given
drift level are similar to those expected in a structure at similar lateral displacements. It
should be emphasized that the test specimens were not intended to represent prestressed
(e.g., post-tensioned) slabs, which are typically more slender than reinforced concrete
slabs.
3.3.1. Specimen B1
Specimen B1 was tested over a two-day period. After completion of the 1.15% drift
cycle, the slab was fully unloaded and all but 25 kips of the axial load was removed from
the column. At the beginning of the second day of testing, the column and slab were
reloaded following the same procedure described in Section 2.5.3.
30
Hysteresis plots for loading in the X and Y directions for Specimen B1 are shown in
Figure 3-24 and Figure 3-25, respectively. Hysteresis plots with resultant forces and drifts
are plotted in Figure 3-26. Also, the relationship between the slab moments transferred
into the column about the X- and Y-axes is plotted in Figure 3-27, with the portions of
the response representing the drift cycles to 1.85% and 2.30% drift highlighted. As
discussed in Chapter 3, a gravity shear ratio of 50% was targeted throughout each test. A
time history of the gravity shear ratio and the imposed lateral drifts in the X and Y
directions is plotted for the entire test in Figure 3-28. For reference, the target gravity
shear ratio of 50% is also plotted in Figure 3-28 with a dashed line.
Hysteresis behavior in both the X and Y directions remained relatively linear through the
end of the 0.90% drift cycle (Figure 3-24 and Figure 3-25). The peak force exhibited
during the cycles to 1.15%, 1.40%, 1.60%, and 1.85% drift was nearly equal. The
maximum lateral force for the entire test was achieved at Point 7 of the 1.15% drift cycle
in the X-direction (Figure 3-24), and Point 2 of the 1.60% drift cycle in the Y-direction
(Figure 3-25).
The plot of moment transferred between the slab and column for the X- and Y-axes
shows some interdependency throughout the early drift cycles. For example, after the
specimen was displaced to Point 1 in the cloverleaf loading pattern, where the moment
about the X-axis was positive and the moment about the Y-axis was nearly zero, the
specimen was displaced in the negative X-direction while the Y-displacement was held
constant. This displacement along the X-axis caused a reduction in the moment about the
X-axis that was relatively consistent throughout the early drift cycles. A similar
relationship is evident between moment about the Y-axis and Y-axis drift. These
relationships (slopes) were relatively constant until the specimen was displaced from
Point 1 to Point 2 of the 2.30% drift cycle, where displacement in the negative X-
direction caused a large decrease in moment about the X-axis. This increased
interdependence between X- and Y-axis moments seems to indicate that membrane
action played a significant role by the end of the test.
31
Moving from Point 1 to Point 2 during the 2.30% drift cycle, there was a steep decline in
gravity shear ratio, as shown in Figure 3-28, and also a flattening in the hysteresis plots
(Figure 3-24 and Figure 3-25). Through Point 4, the gravity shear ratio continued to drop
rapidly to a value of 37%. This substantial decrease in gravity shear ratio was associated
with extensive punching shear-related damage (Figure 3-2) and a large drop of the slab
relative to the column. The vertical settlement of the slab resulted in a reduction in the
tension in each prestressing strand, which led to a decrease in the applied vertical force
on the slab. At Point 4, the target gravity shear in the connection was reestablished by
reloading the slab. At Point 5, another substantial drop in gravity shear occurred. The Y
direction hysteresis plot also showed a large decrease in lateral stiffness (Figure 3-25).
Before moving to Point 6, the gravity shear ratio was again brought back to 50% by
further tensioning of the prestressing strands. As the specimen was displaced to Point 6
during the cycle at 2.30% drift, the gravity shear ratio dropped significantly again;
however, the attempt to reload to the target gravity shear ratio was unsuccessful as the
slab continued to slide down the column with little increase in gravity shear (Figure
3-28).
3.3.2. Specimen B2
Specimen B2 was the only test to be completed in one day; thus, the slab and column
were never fully unloaded for the duration of the test. Hysteresis plots from the X and Y
loading directions for Specimen B2 are shown in Figure 3-29 and Figure 3-30,
respectively. In Figure 3-31, the hysteresis response is plotted using resultant load and
drift values.
The hysteresis plots show that peak force, limited by the flexural capacity of the slab, was
relatively constant during the cycles to 1.15%, 1.40%, 1.60%, and 1.85% drift (Figure
3-29 and Figure 3-30). During the cycle to 2.30% drift, however, a substantial reduction
in peak lateral force occurred for both loading directions as a punching shear failure
developed in the specimen.
Similar to Specimen B1, results from Specimen B2 showed a consistent relationship

between moments transferred between the slab and the column about the X- and Y-axes
32
throughout the early drift cycles (Figure 3-32). These relationships (slopes) were
relatively constant until the specimen was displaced from Point 10 to Point 11 of the
1.85% cycle; at which point displacement in the negative Y-direction caused a large
decrease in moment about the Y-axis. As mentioned earlier, the increase in the
interdependence between moments about the X- and Y-axes is believed to be indicative
of the membrane action in the slab. Shortly after this increased interdependence, the slab
failed between Points 1 and 2 of the 2.30% drift cycle.
A time history of the gravity shear ratio and applied lateral drifts is plotted Figure 3-33.
The gravity shear ratio remained within 10% of the target gravity shear during the cycles
between 0.45% and 1.60% drift (Figure 3-33). The slightly higher drop in gravity shear
throughout the first drift cycle (0.25% drift) was likely caused by initial cracking in the
slab.
Throughout the 1.85% drift cycle, it was not possible to maintain a stable gravity shear
ratio, especially beyond Point 7 on the load path, as a punching shear failure began to
develop. As the slab began to drop down the column, tension dropped in the prestressing
strands and loads were redistributed to the actuators supporting the slab corners.
When loading from Point 1 to Point 2 in the 2.30% drift cycle, there was a severe drop in
the gravity shear (Figure 3-33). This event was associated with a slight but sudden drop
in applied lateral load in the X direction and an overall decrease in lateral stiffness and
strength during the ensuing lateral displacements (see portion of hysteresis response
highlighted in black in Figure 3-29). The sudden drop in lateral force was likely caused
by the fracture of several studs, as discussed in Section 3.2.2. These stud fractures, along
with the severe concrete degradation in the connection region, led to a severe loss of
stiffness and gravity load capacity of the specimen. As a result, the test was terminated.
3.3.3. Specimen B3
Testing of Specimen B3 was completed over two days. Day one of testing ended after the
completion of the 1.60% drift cycle. Hysteresis plots in the X and Y directions for
Specimen B3 are shown in Figure 3-34 and Figure 3-35, respectively, while the specimen
hysteresis response using resultant load and drift values is shown in Figure 3-36. The
33
hysteresis behavior of Specimen B3 was stable throughout the cycles up to 1.85% drift,
with a relatively constant peak force, limited by flexural yielding, during the cycles
between 0.90% and 1.85% drift. During the cycle to 1.85% drift, however, an
approximately 15% drop in gravity shear occurred. This led to a pause in the test at zero
lateral displacement between Points 6 and 7 on the loading path to further tension the
strands in order to restore the gravity shear in the connection (Figure 3-38).
During the 2.30% drift cycle, a large decrease in lateral stiffness from the previous 1.85%
drift cycle was observed while the specimen was displaced from Point 1 to Point 2. The
gravity shear ratio also became very unstable throughout the 2.30% drift cycle as
punching related damage developed and the slab dropped down the column (Figure 3-8).
As indicated in Figure 3-38, the slab was reloaded during the 2.30% drift cycle at zero
displacement in X and Y directions, when loading from Point 3 to 4, Point 6 to Point 7,
and Point 9 to Point 10 on the loading path. Each time, a gravity shear ratio of 50% was
successfully reestablished in the connection. In contrast to the previous specimens, this
connection was capable of supporting gravity loads and could be cycled after significant
punching shear damage was observed.
A substantial loss of torsional stiffness in the connection was also observed during the
2.30% drift cycle, resulting in the slab rotating relative to the column about the column
longitudinal axis. This was unrealistic behavior for a flat-slab frame system. The test was
terminated after loading to Points 1 and 2 of the 2.75% drift cycle, when significant
twisting about the column was observed and after the slab had dropped well over 1 in.
down the column.
The relationship between the moments in the slab about the X- and Y-axes are plotted in
Figure 3-37. Similar to Specimens B1 and B2, results from Specimen B3 showed a
consistent relationship between X- and Y-axis slab moments throughout the early drift
cycles, with a slightly increased interdependence during the 1.85% drift cycle. A sudden
increase in this interdependence was observed when the specimen was displaced from
Point 1 to Point 2 of the 2.30% cycle; at which point displacement in the negative X-
direction caused a large decrease in moment about the X-axis. This increased
34
interdependence of moments in both directions was believed to be the result of membrane
action in the slab in the connection region that developed as a consequence of the
substantial deterioration of the slab concrete. Shortly after this change in slope, while
loading to Points 5 and 6 of the 2.30% drift cycle, the flexural strength of the slab
degraded to near zero.
3.3.4. Specimen B4
Testing of Specimen B4 was completed over two days. Day one of testing ended after the
completion of the 1.60% drift cycle. Hysteresis plots in the X and Y loading directions
for Specimen B4 are shown in Figure 3-39 and Figure 3-40 respectively. In Figure 3-41,
the hysteresis response is plotted using resultant load and drift values.
Specimen B4 exhibited a stable response throughout the cycles up to 1.85% drift, with
relatively constant peak force for the cycles between 0.90% and 1.85% drift. The peak
force capacity of Specimen B4 was controlled by flexural yielding, as in the other
specimens. At Point 5 in the 2.30% drift cycle, the first substantial decrease in peak
lateral force relative to the previous cycle was observed (Figure 3-40). From this point
forward in the test, the hysteresis loops showed a large decrease in specimen stiffness and
strength. The connection gravity shear also became very unstable beyond this point,
requiring the slab to be reloaded for the first time in the middle of a cycle. This was done
at zero displacement while loading from Point 9 to Point 10, as indicated in Figure 3-43.
In Figure 3-42, the relationship between the moments in the slab about the X- and Y-axes
is plotted. Similar to the previous specimens, results from Specimen B4 showed a
consistent relationship between X- and Y-axis slab moments throughout the early drift
cycles. These relationships were relatively consistent until the 2.30% drift cycle, where
an increased interdependence was observed. This interdependence increased modestly
while loading from Point 1 to Point 2. The moments became strongly correlated while
loading from Point 4 to Point 5. By the time the specimen was loaded to Point 9 of the
2.30% cycle, the connection had exhibited a substantial loss of moment capacity.
Although the slab had dropped a substantial amount (more than 1 in.) by the end of the
2.30% drift cycle, the connection was still capable of holding the required gravity shear.
35
The specimen was subjected to a full cycle at 2.75% drift. During the 2.75% drift cycle,
the slab was reloaded to the target gravity shear when it was at zero displacement prior to
loading to Points 4, 7, and 10. When reloading the slab prior to Point 7, the slab corners
were lowered to increase the amount of simulated gravity load attracted to the
connection. After the last quarter cycle to 2.75% drift, the specimen was still capable of
supporting the required gravity shear. However, the test was terminated because the slab
had sustained severe damage and dropped more than 2 in.
3.4. Load versus Drift Envelope Response

Tabulated in Table 3-1 to Table 3-4 are the values of peak resultant lateral force that were
recorded at each of the thirteen points on the cloverleaf loading path at each drift level.
The maximum resultant lateral force achieved at each of the points in the cloverleaf
loading pattern during the each test is marked on the table with an asterisk. Connections
exhibiting ductile performance should exhibit a good strength and stiffness retention
capacity through large drift levels. In Table 3-1 to Table 3-4, values exceeding at least
90% of the maximum lateral load recorded at the respective loading point, prior to and
after reaching the peak force, are bolded. To facilitate specimen comparisons, the
maximum resultant force (the value with an asterisk in each column in Table 3-1 to Table
3-4) and corresponding drift level for each respective loading point are recorded in Table
3-5.
Figure 3-44 to Figure 3-46 show load versus drift envelope curves corresponding to each
of the thirteen points in the cloverleaf loading pattern shown in Figure 2-28 (the values
for a particular curve are associated with a column from Table 3-1 to Table 3-4). The
corner points on the loading path are plotted in Figure 3-44 and the points on the loading
path associated with drifts in only the X or Y direction are plotted, respectively, in Figure
3-45 and Figure 3-46. Each plot contains curves corresponding to the four specimens
tested in this investigation (Specimens B1 through B4), as well as Specimen SB3 (with
shear stud reinforcement) tested in a previous study (Cheng et al. 2009). For comparison,
the resultant lateral force and resultant drift values were used in each set of plots.
36
The slopes of the envelope plots in Figure 3-44 to Figure 3-46 show that the stiffness of
each of the specimens tested in the current study and that of Cheng’s shear stud
reinforced specimen were nearly identical in the elastic range. The drift level at which the
maximum lateral loads, governed by flexural yielding, were achieved generally varied
from 1.15% to 1.60% for every loading point, while lateral forces exceeding at least 90%
of the peak force at each respective loading point were often reached in the 0.90% to
1.85% drift cycles. Specimens B1, B3, and B4 shared a similar pattern of behavior, where
a large decrease in peak lateral force was not observed until the 2.30% drift cycle (3.25%
resultant drift). During this cycle, substantially lower lateral forces were reached at each
loading point relative to the previous drift cycle (Figure 3-44 to Figure 3-46). The first
significant drop in peak lateral force for Specimen B1 occurred at Point 2, where the peak
resultant force dropped to 12.5 kips, approximately equal to 70% of the peak resultant
lateral force of 17.4 kips reached at the 1.15% drift cycle. Similarly for Specimen B3, at
Point 3 of the 2.30% drift cycle the peak resultant lateral force was approximately 70% of
the maximum force that was reached at this point during the 1.40% drift level (Table 3-3,
Figure 3-45). For Specimen B4, at Point 6, the peak force of 8.6 kips was 70% of the
peak value of 12.3 kips reached at this point during the 1.40% drift cycle (Table 3-4,
Figure 3-46). The decrease in peak force measured during the cycle to 2.30% drift in
Specimens B1, B3 and B4 was due to a substantial loss of stiffness and strength caused
by the formation of punching shear cracks around the column perimeter, as well as the
severe degradation of slab concrete adjacent to the column faces.
Specimen B2 displayed nearly identical behavior to Specimens B1, B3, and B4, attaining
lateral forces that were at least 90% of the maximum force recorded at each cloverleaf
loading point in the 0.90% drift cycle, and maintaining relatively similar peak forces
through the 1.85% drift cycle (Table 3-2). While loading to Point 1 of the 2.30% drift
cycle, a reduction in Y-axis specimen stiffness was observed that led to a peak lateral
force of 10.6 kip, 22% less than the peak force previously imposed at Point 1. The peak
resultant force reached while loading to Point 2 of the 2.30% drift cycle was 7.1 kips,
approximately 60% less than the maximum force reached at Point 2 in previous drift
cycles. In contrast with the other test specimens, where no sudden drop in lateral force
occurred, a small but sudden drop in the applied lateral force occurred when Specimen
37
B2 was displaced from Point 1 to Point 2, as highlighted in Figure 3-29. As mentioned
earlier, this sudden load drop is believed to have been caused by the fracture of several
shear studs in the connection. The response immediately after this load drop indicated a
substantial decrease in lateral stiffness of the specimen.
There was a sharp contrast in behavior between the specimens tested in this investigation
and Specimen SB3 reported in Cheng et al. (2010). All four test specimens in the current
study behaved very similarly in regards to load versus drift response for drift levels up to
1.85%. The behavior throughout these loading cycles was stable, with only gradual
decreases in stiffness and strength. Specimen SB3 (Cheng et al. 2010), designed to have
the minimum amount of shear studs required by the ACI Building Code (ACI Committee
318 2008), showed a sudden and substantial drop in applied lateral force during the cycle
to 1.15% drift (Figure 3-44 to Figure 3-46). The substantially lower drift capacity
exhibited by this specimen can be explained by the fact that the shear stud reinforcement
was not capable of bridging the critical diagonal punching shear crack once it formed,
leading to a behavior similar to that expected for a connection unreinforced in shear. The
much larger amount of shear studs provided in the four specimens tested in this
investigation prevented a connection failure when diagonal cracking initiated, and forced
other failure modes to develop. These other failure modes involved a substantial
degradation of slab concrete adjacent to the column faces.
3.5. Vertical Drop of Slab at Column

The downward vertical displacement of the bottom of the slab relative to the column
(“slab drop”) can be taken as a measure of the degradation of shear transfer mechanisms
between the slab and the column. These vertical displacements result from either
diagonal punching shear cracking in the slab or sliding shear displacements near the face
of the column if a traditional punching failure is prevented by reinforcement (a schematic
of these mechanisms is shown in Figure 3-47). Slab drop in Specimens B2, B3 and B4
was measured by eight Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs) fixed to the
column below the slab, as shown in Figure 2-23. The average slab drop measured by the
38
two LVDTs closest to each column corner is plotted in Figure 3-48 through Figure 3-50
for these three specimens. Slab drop around the perimeter of the column was not recorded
for Specimen B1.
In Specimens B2 through B4, slab drop was shown to exhibit two trends: 1) the average
drop of the slab gradually increased as the number of cycles and drift level increased, and
2) within each drift cycle, the slab drop at each of the column corners varied as the
direction and magnitude of drifts imposed on the specimen varied. The first of these
observations is evidence that cracking and deterioration of the slab concrete gradually
reduced the shear stiffness of the connection, as expected. The second observation, that
slab drop varied among the cloverleaf pattern corners within a drift cycle, demonstrates
the ability of the slab to partially recover the slab drop when unloaded (and loaded in the
opposite direction). These trends appeared stable until, in later cycles, the slab drop
approached 1/4 in. Once the average slab drop reached approximately 1/4 in. in each of
the specimens, the slab drop began to increase rapidly with continued cycling. This rapid
increase in the average slab drop began during the 1.85%, 1.85%, and 2.3% drift cycles
for Specimens B2, B3, and B4, respectively.
3.6. Maximum Shear Stress Based on Eccentric Shear Model

The nominal shear stress, vn, on each face of the critical perimeter due to direct gravity
shear, V, and moment transferred to the column, typically referred to as “unbalanced”
moment, Mub, in each principal direction was calculated using the “eccentric shear
model” specified in the ACI Building Code, Section 11.11.7 (ACI Committee 318 2008).
The direct gravity shear was calculated as the net sum of all vertical forces on the slab
outside of the critical perimeter, i.e., weight of the slab and perimeter steel tubes, forces
applied by prestressing strands, and forces applied by vertical ancillary actuators at the
slab corners. The moment transferred between the slab and the column in each principal
direction was calculated as the resultant of all moments about the slab critical section
centroid caused by external loads applied directly to the slab. All applied slab forces and
their respective moment arms to the connection centroid are shown in the plan view of
39
Figure 2-27. Forces A1 – A4 represent loads applied by ancillary actuators; their sign
convention is taken such that positive loads represent an upward force on the slab. Strand
loads are labeled north, south, east, and west according to their location relative to the
connection. The sign convention of strand loads is taken such that positive loads
represent a downward force on the slab. Using the labels and moment arms shown in
Figure 2-27, the following equations were used to calculate unbalanced moment in each
principal direction, where the forces are expressed in kips and the moments about the X-
and Y-axes, Mubx and Muby, have units of kip-inches.
( ) ( )
(3.3)
( ) ( ) (3.4)
Following Commentary Section R11.11.7.2 of the ACI Building Code (ACI Committee
318 2008), for square interior columns the shear stress distribution due to gravity shear is
assumed to be uniform on the critical section, as shown in Figure 3-51A. The shear stress
distribution due to moment transferred through eccentric shear is assumed to vary linearly
about the critical section, as shown in Figure 3-51B. With V and the corresponding Mubx
and Muby, the maximum shear stresses vux and vuy were taken as the largest value
calculated by,
(3.5)
(3.6)
In Eqns. (3.5) and (3.6), Ac is defined as the area of the critical section at d/2 from the
column faces, equal to d∙bo, where d is the average slab effective depth (4.75 in.) and bo is
the length of the critical perimeter (83 in.). The area of the critical section Ac for the
connection of each specimen was calculated as 394.25 in.2. The term v is an empirical
constant that represents the fraction of moment transferred to the column through
eccentric shear about the critical section. This value is calculated as,
40
(3.7)
( )√ (3.8)
In Eqn. (3.7), f is the fraction of moment to be transferred through flexure over the
effective width. For a rectangular column, the dimension b1 is the width of the column
faces parallel to the direction about which moment is being transferred, while b2 is the
width of the perpendicular column faces. For the square columns used in this study b = b1
= b2 = 16 in.; therefore, according to this model, f = 0.60 and the corresponding fraction
of moment transferred through eccentric shear was 0.40.
The cx and cy variables represent the distance from the geometric centroid of the column
to the failure plane oriented parallel to the X- and Y-axes, respectively, and were
calculated using Eq. 3.9. Because the columns in each test were square,
.
(3.9)
The property Jc is analogous to the polar moment of inertia of the critical section about its
centroid. For interior columns, it is taken as,
( ) ( ) ( )( ) (3.10)
The 16 inch square column used in this study had a calculated value of Jc for moment
transfer about both axes of the connection equal to 28,662 in4.
Using the properties listed above, the maximum shear stress for moment transfer about
either the X or Y axis was calculated for each point on the cloverleaf for each drift level
using Eqns. (3.5) and (3.6). The maximum shear stress at a corner point on the critical
perimeter was also calculated, even though this check is not explicitly required in the
ACI Building Code. This was calculated by taking the maximum value obtained when
using the following equation,
41
(3.11)
For each specimen, the maximum shear stresses on the critical section in each direction at
each loading point throughout the test can be found in Table 3-6 to Table 3-9, where
maximum values attained throughout the test are bolded. The maximum values of shear
stress vx, vy, and vxy recorded throughout each test for Specimens B1 through B4, and
Specimen SB3 reported in Cheng et al. (2010), are shown in Table 3-10. Shear stresses
are normalized by √ (psi) taking as the compressive strength of cylinders made from
the slab concrete tested on the day prior to the test of each respective specimen.
The strength of each specimen, and therefore the shear stress imposed on the critical
section in the slabs, was limited by the flexural strength of the slab (Sections 3.3 and 3.9).
The peak shear stress on the critical section in each principal loading direction was
similar in the four specimens of the current study, with values that ranged from 4.1√
(psi) to 4.4√ (psi) in either principal loading direction (Table 3-10). These values are
also very similar to the peak shear stresses reached by Specimen SB3 (specimen with
stud rails reported in Cheng et al. 2010) of 4.0√ (psi) and 4.3√ (psi) in the X and Y
loading directions, respectively (Cheng and Parra-Montesinos 2009). The peak shear
stress at any point on the critical section due to biaxial bending, vxy, was also nearly
identical with values ranging from 5.8√ (psi) to 6.2√ (psi). These values again were
comparable with the peak shear stress reported in Cheng et al. (2009) of 5.7√ (psi).
As discussed in Section 3.3, the main difference between each of the specimens was the
drift level at which a substantial loss of lateral strength and stiffness, and more
importantly a loss of gravity shear transfer capacity between the slab and the column,
occurred. The decline in peak shear stress for Cheng’s Specimen SB3 occurred in the
1.15% drift cycle, whereas the specimens in the current study did not experience
significant drops in critical perimeter shear stresses until the 1.85% to 2.30% drift cycles.
The same drift levels were associated with a loss of gravity shear transfer capacity
between the slab and the column for Specimens B1 and B2, whereas Specimens B3 and
42
B4 continued to transfer gravity shear after losing the ability to transfer moments
between the slab and column.
Using the measured on the day prior to specimen testing and the specified yield stress
of the studs of 55 ksi, Specimens B1 and B2 had nominal shear stress capacities of
6.8√ (psi) and 5.6√ (psi), respectively, calculated according to ACI Building Code
Section 11.11.5 (ACI Committee 318 2008). Although a different shear stud layout was
used in Specimen B3, with one stud rail at each column corner oriented at 45 degrees
from each column face, the same number of shear studs is assumed to contribute to
punching shear capacity as in Specimen B1. The nominal shear stress capacity for
Specimen B3 was 6.9√ (psi). The nominal shear stress capacity of the connection of
Specimen B4 was governed by the upper shear stress limit of 8√ (psi) for sections
provided with shear stud reinforcement per Section 11.11.5 of ACI 318 (ACI Committee
318 2008).
The nominal shear stress capacities of all four connections were considerably greater than
the peak shear stress attained during the tests for moment transfer in either the X or Y
direction because flexural yielding controlled the strength of the specimens. When biaxial
moment transfer is considered, the peak shear stresses calculated using Eq. (3.11) were
lower than or equal to the nominal shear stress capacity for Specimens B1, B3, and B4
(Table 3-11). Furthermore, the nominal shear stress capacity attributed to the shear stud
reinforcement (vs) in these specimens was greater than the calculated stress demand for
moment transfer in either the X or Y direction. In the case of Specimen B4, the nominal
shear stress capacity attributed to the shear stud reinforcement was approximately 30%
greater than the peak shear stress calculated for biaxial moment transfer. In the test of
Specimen B2, although the nominal shear stress capacity exceeded the peak shear stress
in either the X or Y loading directions by approximately 25% (5.6√ [psi] compared to
4.4√ [psi]), the peak biaxial shear stress of 6.2√ (psi) exceeded the calculated
nominal shear stress capacity of 5.6√ (psi). Recall that several studs in Specimen B2
fractured from the base rail at the weld before yielding of the instrumented studs
43
occurred. Thus, the potential stress capacity of the fractured studs was likely less than the
design yield stress.
3.7. Slab-Column Flexural Rotations

LVDTs were fixed to the top and bottom of the slab at both d and 2d from each column
face so that flexural rotations in the slab could be calculated (see Section 2.3.2 and Figure
2-23). In general, all four specimens exhibited a similar behavior in terms of connection
flexural rotations. Prior to evidence of slab punching becoming visually apparent during
testing, peak calculated flexural rotations were between 0.005 and 0.01 radians in the
positive direction and -0.03 and -0.04 radians in the negative direction (where negative
rotation indicates larger tension strains at the extreme top fibers of the slab). These
calculated rotations are believed to be representative of the rotations that develop in
connections of typical reinforced concrete two-way slab systems at similar lateral
displacement levels because of the slenderness ratio and scale of the slabs tested.
Figure 3-52 shows the slab moment about the Y-axis plotted versus rotations calculated d
and 2d from the north column face of Specimen B2. The similarity between the two plots
in terms of peak rotations calculated for each loading cycle and the shape of the
hysteresis indicates that very little change in rotation was exhibited by the slab beyond d
from the column face. This observation is typical of all four column faces in all four
specimens and indicates that most or all inelastic flexural deformations concentrated
within d from the column faces. See Appendix B for plots of slab moment versus rotation
for all of the specimens.
3.8. Shear Stud Strains

3.8.1. Stud Rail Strain Profile
The axial strain in the stud shanks was monitored in several shear studs in each specimen.
Due to varying shear reinforcement details between specimens, the instrumentation plan
differed accordingly for each test (Figure 2-19 to Figure 2-22). In Figure 3-53 to Figure
44
3-60 strain profiles of individual stud rails are plotted throughout the test. Each data point
represents the maximum strain observed in a given stud during the drift cycle plotted
versus the stud distance to the column face. For studs connected to rails placed at a 45
degree angle with respect to the column faces, strains are plotted versus the distance from
the column corner to the respective stud.
Several shear stud strain gauges were damaged in the late stages of the test as wide cracks
opened up and gauge wires were severed. Data were therefore not available for all
instrumented studs through the end of each test. Data points with hollow markers indicate
that either the gauge was not functional for the entire cycle or the entire cycle was not
completed.
3.8.2. Specimen B1
The first five shear studs were instrumented on the center stud rails placed orthogonal to
the south and east faces of the column (Figure 2-19). The strain profile of these rails is
shown in Figure 3-53. Beyond 1.5d (7-1/8 in.) from the column periphery, strain readings
were relatively low in all instrumented shear studs throughout the test. This agrees with
photographs of the specimen showing a majority of the cracking to be within a distance d
(4-3/4 in.) of the column face.
In the 0.90% drift cycle, there was a relatively large increase in strain in the second and
third studs of the instrumented stud rail on the east column face. A similar strain increase
was observed in the second stud of the instrumented rail on the south column face during
the 1.15% drift cycle. At this stage of the test the peak shear stress on the critical
perimeter was approximately 4√ (psi) (Table 3-6). Based on these observations, it is
likely two-way shear cracks initiated during the 0.90% and 1.15% drift cycles.
In the 1.40% through the 1.85% drift cycles, the peak strains in the first three rows of
shear studs on the south and east face of the connection steadily increased in each
subsequent drift cycle; however, the corresponding moment transferred into the column
remained relatively constant. This suggests a shift in connection shear resistance from the
so-called concrete shear mechanisms to the shear resistance mechanism associated with
the shear stud reinforcement. Maximum measured stud strain was slightly lower than
45
0.003 in the second stud of the instrumented rail on the east column face. This strain was
measured during the cycle at 1.85% drift.
3.8.3. Specimen B2
The first five shear studs on the center stud rails placed orthogonally to each face of the
column of Specimen B2 were instrumented (Figure 2-20). The strain profile of these rails
is shown in Figure 3-54. Similar to Specimen B1, strain values remained relatively low
throughout the entire test beyond 1.5d (beyond the third row of shear studs) from the
column periphery.
Two-way shear cracks likely formed during the 0.90% and 1.15% drift cycles, as large
increases in strain were observed in the first and second rows of studs on the north, south,
and east faces of the connection. Following the formation of diagonal shear cracks,
strains increased steadily throughout the remainder of the test. At the time of failure
during the 2.30% drift cycle, where it is likely that studs fractured from the base rail,
readings from many of the gauges were lost; however, in several studs near the
connection, strain readings decreased significantly. As in Specimen B1, peak measured
stud strain was slightly below 0.003. The first stud closest to the south face of the column
on the center rail was the only stud instrumented with a strain gauge that also fractured
from its base rail due to a weld failure. The maximum strain recorded in this stud was
approximately 0.0027, and occurred in the 1.85% drift cycle (Figure 3-54).
3.8.4. Specimen B3
The strain profiles of stud rails placed orthogonally on each face of the column of
Specimen B3 are plotted in Figure 3-55. Strain profiles for stud rails placed at the corners
of the column and oriented 45 degrees from the column faces are plotted in Figure 3-57.
A number of strain readings for Specimen B3 were omitted for the 1.40% drift cycle due
to a malfunction of the data acquisition system (DAQ), which led to unreliable data
recorded in several of the DAQ channels. The DAQ was restarted after the completion of
the 1.40% drift cycle and it functioned properly thereafter.
As observed in the other tests, shear stud strain readings were only large within a distance
of 1.5d from the column face. The substantial increase in stud strain between the 0.90%
46
and 1.60% drift levels indicated the formation of diagonal shear cracks during these
stages of the test. In general, strain data from studs on the rails placed at the corners of
the column were lower than those of studs on orthogonally placed rails during the cycles
to 1.85% drift and higher. An explanation for this behavior may be related to biaxial
bending at the connection. The highest stress levels on the critical perimeter due to
biaxial bending occur near the column corners. The higher stresses in these areas may
have contributed to a more rapid degradation of concrete, resulting in a less efficient
engagement of the shear studs.
In the 2.30% drift cycle, significant punching shear-related damage developed in the
connection of Specimen B3 as the slab concrete degraded. Many of the studs lost
anchorage and dropped with the slab. However, a large increase in strain was observed in
the second shear stud on the south face of the column in the 2.30% drift cycle, reaching a
strain of approximately 0.0065 (Figure 3-55 and Figure 3-56). After the test, a kink was
found in this rail between the first and second stud (Figure 3-19). It was also found that
the head of the first shear stud was anchored by top mat flexural reinforcement that
passed through the column. The strain readings and the kink in the rail show that the bar
provided anchorage to the shear stud after the concrete had become loose and the slab
dropped. In the ensuing 2.75% drift cycle, the maximum recorded strain level in this stud
was significantly less than in the 2.30% drift cycle. After the test, the stud was not found
to be anchored by any flexural reinforcement. Thus, it is likely that this decrease in strain
was due to the stud slipping off the bar and losing anchorage at some point between the
2.30% and 2.75% drift cycles.
3.8.5. Specimen B4
The strain profiles of orthogonally placed stud rails on each face of the column of
Specimen B4 are plotted in Figure 3-58 and Figure 3-59. Strain profiles of stud rails
oriented at 45 degrees from each column face are plotted in Figure 3-60. The data for the
rail profiles in Figure 3-58 are labeled “inner orthogonal,” and were constructed with
strain readings from stud rails that were placed closer to the center of the column face
(Figure 2-22). Similarly, the data for the rail profiles in Figure 3-59 are labeled “outer
orthogonal,” and were constructed with strain readings from rails placed between inner
47
orthogonal rails and rails at the column corners oriented at 45 degrees from the column
faces (Figure 2-22).
As in Specimens B1, B2 and B3, the increase in the strain of several studs in the 0.90%
and 1.15% drift cycles indicated the development of diagonal shear cracks at the
connection. Specimen B4 contained eight more rails than the other specimens. Due to the
greater number of shear studs, less load was required to be resisted per stud after diagonal
cracks had formed, resulting in lower strains per stud as well. Peak strains in the first and
second rows of studs in Specimen B4 ranged mostly from 0.001 to 0.0015 (Figure 3-58
and Figure 3-59), in contrast to the other specimens, where measured peak strains were
approximately 0.003 for Specimens B1 and B2, and 0.005 for Specimen B3.
3.9. Slab Flexural Reinforcement Strain Readings

3.9.1. Specimen B1
The strain gauge layout for slab flexural reinforcement is shown in Figure 2-15 and
Figure 2-16. The strain gauge locations were defined by coordinates l (parallel) and t
(transverse) with respect to the column center (Figure 2-17). Strain gauges were applied
to flexural reinforcement placed at several distances t from the column center and at five
distances l, equal to ±(b+d)/2 (±10.375 in.), ±(b+5d)/2 (±19.875 in.), and 0 in. from the
center of the column. Coordinates l and t for each strain gauge are listed in Table 2-2.
Strain profiles of flexural reinforcement laid along the X and Y axes of the slab were
plotted for each specimen of the current study, and are shown for Specimen B1 in Figure
3-61 and Figure 3-62, respectively. The strain profile for bars laid in the X-direction
shows the strains recorded by gauges TS3, TS7, TS9, TS11, TS12, and TS13 at Point 4 of
each drift cycle (it was found that strains were generally maximum in these gauges at
Point 4). These gauges were located at the same position, l=-(b+d)/2 in the X-direction,
on separate bars placed at distances, t, of -3 in., -15 in., -27 in., -39 in., -57 in., and -81 in.
from the center of the column in the Y-direction (Figure 2-16). Similarly, the strain
profile for bars laid along the Y-direction is shown for strains recorded at Point 7 for each
drift cycle by gauges TE2, TE6, TE10, TE11, TE12, and TE13. These gauges were
48
located in the same position in the Y-direction, l=(b+d)/2, on separate bars placed at
distances, t, of -3 in., -15 in., -27 in., -39 in., -57 in., and -81 in. from the center of the
slab in the X-direction (Figure 2-16).
In Specimen B1, two gauges in the top mat of reinforcement (gauges TS1 and TS2 shown
in Figure 2-16) were damaged during the casting of the slab and did not provide reliable
data.
The yield strain of 0.00233, determined from coupon tests, was exceeded in instrumented
bars at l=±(b+d)/2 within a 30 in. (5h) slab section centered on both the X and Y faces of
the column, as shown in the strain profiles in Figure 3-61 and Figure 3-62. Strains
remained below yielding in all of the gauges located on the top reinforcement at
( )⁄ in either direction.
Figure 3-63 and Figure 3-64 show plots of the applied lateral load in the Y-direction
versus the strain in gauges TE2 and TE3, respectively, throughout the entire test. The
onset of yielding is highlighted in each plot by a sudden jump in strain in the 0.90% drift
cycle. In the X-direction, yielding was observed at the 1.15% drift level in gauge TS3, as
highlighted in Figure 3-65. This yielding coincides with a change in the slope of the load-
drift plots discussed in Section 3.4.
The bottom mat of reinforcement remained elastic prior to punching in the 2.30% drift
cycle. As the south slab region began to drop relative to the column, large increases in
strain occurred in bottom slab reinforcement. In particular, this occurred in bars that
passed through the column support and served as integrity steel. This is highlighted in the
strain history for gauges BS2 and BS3 shown in Figure 3-66 and Figure 3-67,
respectively. Large strain increases were also observed in gauges BS6, BS7, and BE7, as
shown in Figure 3-68 to Figure 3-70. These gauges were placed in the region where the
inclined cracks formed in the northwest slab region, as illustrated in Figure 3-11. It is
likely that bars in this location acted as hangers similar to integrity steel passing through
the column support (Figure 2-8) as the south piece of slab began to drop relative to the
north piece, as described in Section 3.2.1.
49
3.9.2. Specimen B2
For Specimen B2, strain gauges BS4 and TS10 were broken during specimen
construction and strain data could not be collected at either location. Strain profile plots
in the X and Y directions are shown in Figure 3-71 and Figure 3-72.
Flexural yielding was concentrated within the central 30 in. (5h) of the slab for loading in
the X direction, as shown by the strain profile across the slab width for gauges located at
d/2 from the column face on bars parallel to the Y axis (Figure 3-71). Yielding for
loading in the Y direction concentrated over a somewhat narrower region, as indicated by
the strain profile shown in Figure 3-72, obtained from strain gauges located at d/2 from
the column face on bars parallel to the X axis (loading in the Y direction).
Strain gauges TE2 and TE3 indicated flexural yielding for loading in the Y direction
during the 0.70% drift cycle, as highlighted in Figure 3-73 and Figure 3-74, respectively.
Flexural yielding for loading in the X direction also occurred during this cycle, as
indicated by the strains measured through strain gauge TS2. On the opposite side of the
connection, however, strains greater than the yield strain were measured by gauge TS3
during the 0.90% drift cycle (Figure 3-76). All of these strain gauges were placed on bars
at ( )⁄ . During the 1.85% drift cycle, yielding was indicated by readings
from gauges TE4, TS1, and TS4. These were placed on reinforcing bars
( )⁄ from the column center, as highlighted in Figure 3-77 to Figure 3-79,
respectively. Specimen B2 was the only specimen to show yielding in any flexural bar at
( )⁄ .
Bottom reinforcement remained elastic throughout the entire test prior to punching in the
2.30% drift cycle. After the column punched, large strain increases in bottom bars
passing through the column occurred, as shown by the strain histories of gauges BE2,
BE3, and BS3 (Figure 3-80 to Figure 3-82).
3.9.3. Specimen B3
Strain profile plots in the X and Y directions for Specimen B3 are shown in Figure 3-83
and Figure 3-84. Flexural reinforcement in the slab remained elastic until the 0.70% drift
cycle, when reinforcement laid in the X-direction at t=3 in, and l=±(b+d)/2 indicated
50
yielding, as shown by the lateral load versus strain plots for gauges TS2 and TS3 in
Figure 3-85 and Figure 3-86, respectively. During the ensuing 0.90% drift cycle, bars
placed in the Y-direction showed signs of yielding at l=±(b+d)/2, as indicated by the
strain history of gauges TE2 and TE3 shown in Figure 3-87 and Figure 3-88,
respectively.
In profile plots Figure 3-83 and Figure 3-84, it is shown that the yield strain of 0.00223,
determined from coupon tests, was exceeded by measurements taken on flexural
reinforcement at a distance of d/2 from the column face. None of the lateral force versus
drift plots of gauges placed at 2.5d from the column face indicated yielding throughout
the test.
In the bottom mat of reinforcement, strain gauge BS6 was damaged during specimen
construction. Behavior of bottom reinforcement was mostly elastic through the end of the
1.85% drift cycle, although yielding was spreading in the top mat of reinforcement
(Figure 3-89). As in the previous specimens, increases in bottom bar strains were
observed during the 2.30% drift cycle as a punching shear failure developed and the slab
dropped significantly with respect to the column (Figure 3-90). These increased strains
indicate that these bars had begun to act as integrity reinforcement through the column.
3.9.4. Specimen B4
Strain profile plots in the X and Y directions for Specimen B4 are shown in Figure 3-91
and Figure 3-92. In the top mat of reinforcing bars, strain gauge TE3 was damaged
during specimen construction and TS3 was damaged after the cycle to 1.85% drift. The
initial yield of flexural reinforcement at t = -3 in. and ( )⁄ occurred at much
higher drift levels than in the other three specimens. For loading in the Y direction, gauge
TE2 recorded yielding during the 1.40% drift cycle, as shown in Figure 3-93. For loading
in the X-direction, strain gauges TS2 and TS3 initially showed yielding during the 0.90%
and 1.85% drift cycles, respectively (Figure 3-94 and Figure 3-95). In the previous
specimens, gauges in these locations indicated yielding during the cycles at 0.70% to
1.15% drift. The reason for this different yielding pattern is unclear. Strain gauge TS5,
51
located at t = -15 in. (2.5h) and ( )⁄ , showed inelastic behavior during the
1.85% drift cycle (Figure 3-96).
In the strain profile plots shown in Figure 3-91 and Figure 3-92, it can be seen that peak
reinforcing bar strains at the latter drift cycles were greater than or approximately equal
to the yield strain of 0.00232, determined from coupon tests, within a 30 in. (5h) slab
section centered on both the X and Y faces of the column. Yield strains were exceeded on
flexural reinforcement at a distance ( )⁄ ; however, none of the lateral force
versus strain plots of gauges at this distance indicated inelastic behavior at any point
throughout the test.
In the bottom mat of reinforcement, strain gauge BS2 was damaged during specimen
construction. During the 2.30% drift cycle, strain gauges on bars passing through the
column recorded a change in behavior and inelastic deformations in some cases, which
was likely associated with the slab beginning to drop relative to the column. Lateral load
versus strain histories for gauges BE2, BE3, and BS3, shown in Figure 3-97 to Figure
3-99, respectively, highlight this behavior. Strain readings on all other bottom mat
reinforcement showed elastic behavior throughout the entire test.
3.10. Column Base Rotations

The base of the first story column was expected to undergo inelastic flexural
deformations right above the specimen base block (see Figure 2-5 for specimen layout).
As shown in Figure 2-24, LVDTs were fixed to each face of the column 14 in. from the
base block so that column “hinge” rotations could be calculated (the assumed hinge
length of 14 in. is equal to the effective flexural depth of the 16 in. square column). The
relationship between moment at the base of the column and calculated flexural hinge
rotations is plotted in Figure 3-100 through Figure 3-107. The moments in the base of the
column about the X- and Y-axes, and , were calculated using Eq. (3.12), where ,
, and are the forces applied to the top block along the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, is the
height of the specimen (205 in.), and are the moments transferred from
the slab to the column about the X- and Y-axes, is the net vertical force transferred
52
from the slab to the column, and and are the horizontal displacements measured
at the top of the specimen and at the slab, respectively. Both and were adjusted to
account for slip of the base block.
(3.12)
In Eq. (3.12), a positive direction for Mslab corresponds to the same direction of the
moment generated by a positive lateral force (either FYH or FxH). In general, however,
the direction of Mslab is opposite to the direction of the moment caused by the lateral
force. Positive direction for MX and MY, on the other hand, is opposite to the positive
direction for the moment generated by the lateral force.
The columns were subjected to axial forces of approximately 200 kip, or , and
shear stresses of approximately 0.9√ (psi), where is the cross-sectional area of the
column and is the cylinder compressive strength of the concrete. The hysteresis
relationships of the columns were similar for the four specimens and both loading
directions. All of the curves show evidence of yielding at a rotation of approximately
0.005 rad. Peak moment at the column base occurred at a column rotation of
approximately 0.007 rad. The greatest difference between the hysteresis responses was
the maximum calculated rotation in each of the specimens, which ranged approximately
from 0.008 to 0.016 rad. Peak rotations were similar for Specimens B1 through B3
(between 0.008 and 0.011 rad), while the column base of Specimen B4 underwent the
largest rotations (approximately 0.016 rad), as this specimen was subjected to the largest
lateral displacement. No major damage was observed in the columns by the end of the
tests.
3.11. Twist of Slab Relative to Column

As shown in Figure 2-26, four LVDTs were placed in the plane of the slab to measure
relative displacements between the slab and the reaction wall along both the X- and Y-
53
axes. Data from these LVDTs were also used to calculate rotation of the slab about the
(vertical) Z-axis. Because column rotations about the Z-axis were restrained at the bottom
and top of the column, the measured slab rotation about the Z-axis can be considered to
be the same as the twist of the slab relative to the column. As discussed in Section 3.3,
such twisting of the slab is not representative of typical slab-column deformations and
should be minimized during tests of slab-column connections. Figure 3-108 through
Figure 3-111 show the twist of the slab calculated for Specimens B1 through B4. Except
for very small twists calculated near the end of the tests, the slab of Specimens B1, B2,
and B4 essentially did not twist relative to the column. The slab in Specimen B3,
however, did twist relative to the column starting during the cycle at 2.30% drift. Z-axis
rotations exceeded 0.10 rad by the end of the test of Specimen B3. The pre-punching
behavior of Specimen B3 was not affected by this twisting, however, as it began once a
punching shear failure started to develop. As discussed previously, the connection of
Specimen B3 substantially degraded during the cycles to 1.85% and 2.3% drift, yet slab
twists remained below 0.015 rad up to the end of the 2.30% drift cycle. Significant
twisting of the slab and unrealistic deformation demands did develop during the cycle to
2.75% drift.
54
4. DISCUSSION OF FAILURE MECHANISMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR DESIGN
4.1. Specimen Performance

The results from the test of each specimen were closely examined in an effort to identify
the mechanisms controlling their behavior and failure. In particular, the degradation of
slab moment capacity, vertical (downward) displacement of the slab relative to the
column face, and the relationships between reinforcement strain and imposed specimen
drift were examined. The findings for each specimen and discussion of the implications
for reinforced concrete (non-prestressed) flat-plate slab design are presented in the
following sections.
4.1.1. General
The performances of the four specimens to initial application of gravity loads and to
lateral displacements up to approximately 1% drift were very similar. As shown in Figure
4-1, data from LVDTs indicate that initial application of the gravity load caused
compression on the bottom surface of the slab adjacent to the column. The data plotted in
Figure 4-1, taken from Specimen B1, are typical of the four specimens. Measurements
taken on top of the slab near the column faces indicate that gravity load application
caused top surface tension strains to develop, as expected. Gravity load application
resulted in strains of approximately 0.0005, 0.0004, 0.0004, and 0.00035 on the top mat
of reinforcement approximately 2 in. from the column faces in Specimens B1 through
B4, respectively. Lateral displacements caused the slab strains to vary with enough
magnitude that tension strains sufficient to cause cracking were measured on the bottom
of the slab starting in the first drift cycle (to 0.25% drift). It should be mentioned that
initial strains resulting from the self-weight of the slab were not measured.
Tensile strains exceeding the reinforcement yield strain were first measured in the top
mat reinforcement near the face of the column at approximately 0.7% drift. In all four
specimens, strain gauges placed on the top mat of reinforcement at the column face had
developed strains exceeding 0.005, with results from one gauge in Specimen B2 reaching
55
0.0085 before the 0.90% drift cycle had been completed. By 1% drift, extensive yielding
in the top mat of reinforcement (with the associated wide cracks) and tensile strains large
enough to crack the compression zone on the bottom of the slab had been observed. This
yielding of the top mat of reinforcement controlled the strength capacity of each of the
specimens, whereas shear-related concrete degradation and punching controlled the drift
capacities.
4.1.2. Specimen B1
Discussion of the performance of Specimen B1 is more limited than that of the other
specimens for two reasons: 1) vertical drop of the slab, an indicator of punching, was not
measured on all four column faces in this specimen, and 2) several of the strain gauges
failed to record strains through to the end of the test (including 13 out of 16 strain gauges
mounted on studs). Damage such as debonding of strain gauges and severing of strain
gauge wires, particularly if it developed in a pattern consistent with expected cracking,
could be an indicator of new cracking or increased crack width. Where it may be
informative, the occurrence of new damage to gauges is included in the following
discussion.
Specimen B1 was reinforced with studs designed to satisfy the ACI Building Code
requirements neglecting the concrete contribution to shear strength (see Figure 2-19 for
the layout of studs and location of instrumented studs) and arranged so that the maximum
stud spacing in the first three peripheral rows of studs was 1.6d, 1.6d, and 2d,
respectively. Specimen B1 performed in a stable flexurally-dominated manner for several
cycles beyond 1% drift. This finding is supported by strain gauge data, which showed no
indication of diagonal shear cracking until late in the 1.6% drift cycle, and hysteresis
behavior, which showed relatively wide loops with a nearly constant moment capacity,
controlled by flexural yielding, until early in the 2.30% drift cycle (Figure 3-27).
There is some indication that diagonal cracking in the connection began late in the 1.60%
drift cycle. Data from gauge R-E1, located on a stud 1.5 in. from the center of the east
column face, showed a change in slope in the relationship between strain and drift and an
increase in strain from 0.0008 to 0.0015 while loading to Point 8, the south-west corner
56
of the loading sequence (Figure 4-2). Given the stud strain of 0.0008 at Point 7, it is
likely that at this point this particular stud was crossed by a nearly vertical (flexural
crack) and that the gradual rather than sudden increase in strain to 0.0015 when loading
to Point 8 was caused by the turning of this crack into a flexural shear crack.
As Specimen B1 was subsequently loaded to Points 10 and 11 in the cycle to 1.60% drift,
the north-west corner of the loading sequence, three gauges on studs were damaged (R-
S3, R-S5, and R-W3). Two of the three damaged gauges were located south of the
column where shear stresses were expected to be greatest. It is possible these damaged
gauges indicate that diagonal cracking began to spread towards the south of the column
as the direction of loading changed.
During the cycle to 1.85% drift, several strain gauges were damaged. Nearly all of the
damaged gauges were located where shear stresses according to the eccentric shear model
were highest at the time of gauge failure. Gauge R-W4, located west of the column, failed
while loading to Point 2, the north-east corner of the loading sequence. Gauges R-N2 and
R-N3, located north of the column, failed while loading to Point 5, the south-east corner
of the loading sequence. While loading to Point 7, west of the column, gauge BS-E1,
located approximately 9 in. (1.9d) east of the column on the bottom mat of reinforcement,
failed. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, visual evidence of a punching failure developing
was first noted on the east side of the connection when loading to Point 8. Finally, while
displacing the specimen to Points 10, 11, and 12, located north-west in the loading
sequence, gauges R-E2, R-E3, R-E5, R-S4, and BS-S3, located south and east of the
column, were all damaged.
The timing and location of each of the gauge failures are consistent with, but not clear
evidence of, punching shear-induced diagonal cracking developing and extending around
the column as the location of maximum shear stresses changed with the direction of
loading. The increase in strain from 0.0016 to 0.0028 in gauge R-E2, mounted on a stud
located 4 in. (approximately 0.8d) from the center of the east column face, does suggest
the development of diagonal cracking as the specimen was loaded towards Point 11 of the
1.85% drift cycle (Figure 4-3). Despite the evidence that punching shear-related damage
57
began to develop during this loading cycle, hysteresis plots (Figure 3-24 and Figure 3-25)
show that the specimen performance remained stable through the end of the 1.85% drift
cycle. This is an indication that the shear studs were effectively delaying punching shear
failure of the slab.
The connection of Specimen B1 failed early in the cycle to 2.3% drift. While loading
towards Point 2, located north-east in the loading sequence, strain data from gauge R-S1,
which was mounted on a stud 1.5 in. from the south face of the column, indicated a
sudden change in behavior with a strain increase from 0.002 to 0.0029 followed by a
decrease to 0.0023 (Figure 4-4). Simultaneously, data from gauge BS-S2, mounted on the
bottom mat of reinforcement at the south column face, showed a shift from a
compression strain of 0.0009 to a tension strain of 0.0017 (Figure 4-5). This seems to
indicate that the bottom mat of reinforcement started to act as integrity reinforcement
through the column as the slab began to drop significantly due to the development of a
punching shear failure. Figure 3-24 and Figure 3-25 show that while loading to Point 2,
the lateral capacity of the specimen decreased to less than 50% of its peak capacity. This
lateral strength loss was accompanied by a significant reduction in gravity shear, as can
be seen in Figure 3-28.
After punching had developed in the slab, subsequent loading was attempted but the
connection proved unable to transfer the required gravity shear.
4.1.3. Specimen B2
Specimen B2 had shear stud reinforcement designed to satisfy the minimum amount in
Section 21.13.6 of the 2008 ACI Building Code when a shear stress or drift capacity
check is not performed. These studs were arranged in a cruciform layout with a
maximum stud spacing of 1.6d, 1.8d, and 2.9d in the first three peripheral rows,
respectively (see Figure 2-20 for stud layout and location of instrumented studs).
Specimen B2 behaved in a stable flexurally-dominated manner up to the cycle at 1.60%

drift (inclusive). After initiation of flexural yielding in the slab and up to this drift level,
lateral load capacity remained relatively constant (Figure 3-32), none of the data from
strain gauges placed on flexural reinforcement exhibited uncharacteristic changes in
58
slope, and the slab had dropped, on average, less than approximately 1/8 in. (Figure
3-48). Furthermore, of the nineteen shear studs instrumented with strain gauges, eighteen
studs showed strains below 0.0015 with most studs showing strains below 0.001. The
only exception was the stud located 2 in. (0.4d) from the east face of the column, which
developed strains exceeding 0.002 during the 1.60% drift cycle (Figure 4-6).
The performance of the connection in Specimen B2 degraded during the cycle to 1.85%
drift, as indicated by both the slab drop and the interaction between X- and Y-axis slab
moments. During this drift cycle, the average slab drop increased approximately from 1/8
in. to 1/3 in., an increase of nearly threefold (Figure 3-48). Also, the X- and Y-axis
moments transferred into the column became more interdependent during the cycle to
1.85% drift, a sign that membrane action became more dominant as the slab concrete
degraded.
Data from strain gauges show that diagonal cracking of the slab initiated when the
specimen was loaded from Point 4 to Point 5 in the cycle to 1.85% drift (where Point 5 is
the second of four corners in the loading pattern and oriented south-east of the column).
The three instrumented studs closest to the north and west column faces (within two slab
depths of the column face), showed significant increases in strain between Points 4 and 5
and while holding the specimen at Point 5. This includes gauge R-W1, located on the
stud 2 in. (0.4d) from the center of the west face of the column, which showed an
increase in strain from 0.0008 to 0.002 (Figure 4-7). Furthermore, data from a strain
gauge placed on one of the bottom slab bars passing through the column showed a
change from a compression strain of 0.001 to a tension strain of 0.0005 between Points 4
and 5 (Figure 4-8). This bar transitioned from flexure-induced compression to the tension
strains expected in a bar engaged as integrity reinforcement after punching has occurred.
Despite stable specimen performance during the next quarter-cycle at 1.85% drift (points
7, 8 and 9), as evidenced by plots of moment transferred into the column, there are
indications that diagonal cracking spread towards the north-east after it initiated north-
west of the connection. The strain history measured by gauge BS-E2, placed on a bottom
slab bar at the east face of the column, showed a sudden change in trend with a strain
59
decrease of approximately 0.0006 as the slab was loaded from Point 7 to Point 8 (Figure
4-9). Also, data from three strain gauges placed on top slab reinforcement located
between 3 and 5 slab depths away from the north-east corner of the column (strain gauges
TS-E9, TS-E10, and TS-E11) showed a change in slope in the relationship between strain
and drift (see Figure 4-10 for a plot of strain and drift for gauge TS-E9). Although
vertical slab displacement associated with punching would be expected to increase
tension in the flexural bars at the diagonal crack instead of the observed decreases, it is
possible that bending of the flexural bars at the crack caused the reduced strains.
Regardless, these data signal a change in the deformation mechanism north-east of the
column.
The locations of the observed changes are consistent with diagonal cracks intersecting the
bottom reinforcement close to the column face and the top reinforcement farther away
from the column. Also, during this quarter-cycle to Points 7, 8, and 9, the average vertical
drop of the slab exceeded 1/4 in., and visual evidence of punching shear-induced damage
on the north east side of the connection was first noted (Section 3.1.2). Data from strain
gauges placed on studs located to the north and east of the column, however, did not
show notable changes in strain while the specimen was loaded to Point 8.
As Specimen B2 was loaded from Point 10 to Point 11 during the 1.85% drift cycle (the
north-west corner of the loading pattern), punching-related damage spread to the south-
east corner of the connection and compromised the integrity of the slab. Sudden increases
in the strain data from gauges on studs 2 and 5.5 in. (0.4d and 1.2d, respectively) from the
south face of the column, followed by large increases in strain up to near yield, showed
that diagonal cracking had extended to the south of the slab (Figure 4-11). Once
punching-related damage extended from the north-west corner around to the south-east
corner of the connection, stressing the studs to near their yield capacity, the shear studs
were unable to maintain the integrity of the slab. At this point in the test, average drop of
the slab had increased to more than 0.3 in. and X- and Y-axis slab moments transferred
into the column became strongly correlated.
60
Loading to the first point of the 2.30% drift cycle caused the slab drop to increase rapidly
and showed that the slab had lost significant flexural capacity. The test was terminated
shortly thereafter. It was later determined that as the specimen was displaced towards
Point 2 of the 2.30% drift cycle, several stud-to-base rail welds fractured (after the
punching failure had developed, as discussed in Section 3.2.2).
4.1.4. Specimen B3
As in Specimen B1, Specimen B3 was reinforced with shear studs proportioned to resist
the applied shear stresses assuming no shear strength contribution from the concrete.
Four of the twelve stud rails were located at the column corners and oriented at 45
degrees from the principal column axes (see Figure 2-21 for stud layout and location of
instrumented studs). This layout resulted in a maximum stud spacing of 1.5d, 1.6d, and
2.0d in the first three peripheral rows of studs, respectively. Specimen B3 generally
performed in a stable manner, dominated by flexural deformations, up to the 1.60% drift
cycle (inclusive). This observation is supported by stable hysteresis loops (Figure 3-37)
and relationships between flexural reinforcement strains and imposed drift, and average
slab drop below approximately 1/8 in. prior to the 1.85% drift cycle (Figure 3-49).
There is evidence that some studs were crossed by cracks beginning in the cycle to 1.15%
drift. While loading to Point 2 of the 1.15% drift cycle (the corner north-east of the
column), there was a definite but gradual change in the slope between measured strains
and imposed drift for three studs grouped near the south-west corner of the column.
These studs were located where shear stresses calculated according to the eccentric shear
model were greatest at this stage in the loading. Figure 4-12 shows the relationship
between strain and drift for one of these studs, stud RO-SW2. As discussed in Section
4.1.2, it is likely that the gradual rather than sudden increase in stud strains was due to the
propagation and opening of a flexural shear crack as opposed to the formation of a new
diagonal crack.
Of the other thirty six instrumented studs, four studs showed strains larger than 0.0015
(up to 0.0021) prior to the cycle to 1.85% drift. The four studs exhibiting strains greater
than 0.0015 (RO-EN2, RO-ES2, RO-WS2, and RR-NW1) were located either 0.4d or
61
0.9d from the face of the column at each of the four column corners. Although these
strains indicate the studs were crossed by cracks, the role some of these studs played in
resisting shear is difficult to evaluate given the gradual increase in strain with cycles.
Such gradual increase in strain without a noticeable change in pattern suggests that these
studs were primarily engaged by slightly inclined flexural cracks. The relationship
between strain and drift for one of these four studs is shown in Figure 4-13 (gauge RR-
NW1). Increases in strains measured by gauge RR-NW1 to 0.00035 and 0.0005, which
are consistent with cracking at the stud, occurred in the drift cycles to 0.70% and 0.90% -
the same drift cycles in which the first indication of yielding was identified in strain
gauges TS-S3 and TS-E3 located on the top-mat reinforcement at the north and west
column faces, respectively. That strains consistent with cracking were first recorded by
gauge RR-NW1 when yielding was first recorded in flexural reinforcement at the column
faces supports the interpretation that cracks crossing the stud at the northwest corner of
the column were associated with widening of flexural cracks at the faces of the column.
Measurements indicate that slab performance began to deteriorate during the cycle to
1.85% drift, although not as rapidly as in Specimen B2. Visual evidence of slab punching
was first noted while loading to Point 2 of the 1.85% drift cycle. While loading to Point
5, the south-east corner of the loading sequence, the relationship between drift and strain
in stud RR-NW6 showed a sudden change in slope (Figure 4-14). Stud RR-NW6 was
located almost 14 in., approximately 3d, from the north-west corner of the column. This
change in behavior of stud RR-NW6 suggests that, by delaying concentration of damage
near the column face, the radially arranged studs led to a better spread of deformations in
the connection away from the column face.
When loading to Point 8 in the 1.85% drift cycle, south-west in the loading sequence,
strains measured on studs extending from the north-east corner of the column 45 degrees
from the column principal axes showed evidence of a shifting of stresses in the shear
studs. As shear stresses increased north-east of the column, strains measured in studs
close to the column decreased while strains in studs further from the column increased.
Strains measured in studs RR-NE1 and NE-2, located 2 and 4-3/8 in. (0.4d and 0.9d,
respectively) from the column, decreased (Figure 4-15), strains measured in stud RR-
62
NE4, located 9-1/8 in. (2d) from the corner of the column, remained relatively constant,
and strains measured in stud RR-NE6, located 13-7/8 in. (2.9d) from the column,
increased, although they remained less than 0.0002.
As the specimen was loaded towards Point 11, north-west of the column, a change in
trend in the strain history from several strain gauges was observed. Studs RO-EN1, RO-
EN2, RO-ES2, RO-SE1, RO-SE2 and RO-SE4, all located east and south of the column,
showed a change in slope and/or marked increases in strain (Figure 4-16 is typical).
These changes suggest that punching-related cracking developed in the south-east corner
of the connection when the slab was displaced to Point 11. Despite this evidence of
punching-related damage, and an increase in vertical slab drop to approximately 1/4 in.,
the specimen lateral load capacity remained stable near 80% of its peak capacity at the
end of the cycle to 1.85% drift.
The integrity of the specimen was compromised in the first quarter-cycle to 2.30% drift.
As shown in Figure 3-37 and Figure 3-49, while the quarter-cycle to Points 1-2-3 of the
2.30% drift cycle was performed, the specimen lost much of its flexural capacity and the
average vertical drop of the slab increased from approximately 1/4 to 1/2 in. While
loading to Point 2 (north-east of the column), stud RO-WS1, located 2 in. (0.4d) from the
west column face, yielded (Figure 4-17). Also while loading to Point 2, several strain
gauges located on top mat reinforcement within d of the south and west faces of the
column showed either strains exceeding 0.01, erratic strains, or were damaged
completely. Strains recorded by Gauge BS-S3, located on the bottom mat reinforcement
at the west face of the column, which had become negative (compression) during the
1.85% drift cycle, decreased further to -0.0015 during this first quarter cycle. These
bottom mat compressive strains may indicate bending of the bar near the column caused
by the vertical drop of the slab.
Subsequent loading towards Points 4 and 5 of the 2.30% drift cycle spread the damage
around a greater percentage of the perimeter of the column, leading to a nearly total loss
of lateral load capacity. At this point in the test, several studs near the column exhibited a
constant strain independent of imposed drifts, indicating a loss of anchorage consistent
63
with severe concrete degradation (Figure 4-15). This damage rendered the slab unable to
hold a steady vertical load (Figure 3-38). As subsequent displacements were imposed on
the specimen, the slab began to rotate (twist) about the vertical Z-axis (Section 3.11). Z-
axis rotations exceeded 0.015 radians after the 2.30% drift cycle and 0.10 radians prior to
termination of the test, evidencing degradation of the slab concrete around the perimeter
of the column.
4.1.5. Specimen B4
Specimen B4 was reinforced with a large number of shear studs arranged in a pattern
designed to minimize the spacing between studs within the same peripheral row (see
Figure 2-22 for stud layout and location of instrumented studs). This layout resulted in a
maximum stud spacing of 1.3d, 1.3d, and 1.4d in the first three peripheral rows of studs,
respectively. The area of studs within 2d of the column face exceeded by 50% the area of
studs in Specimens B1 and B3, which had been designed to satisfy strength requirements
assuming that .
Specimen B4 exhibited a behavior dominated by flexural deformations for several cycles

beyond 1% drift. As in previous specimens, this observation is supported by relationships
between flexural reinforcement strains and imposed drift, nearly constant specimen
capacity after flexural yielding until the 2.30% drift cycle (Figure 3-42), and average slab
drop slightly larger than 1/8 in. prior to the 2.30% drift cycle (Figure 3-50).
Although the global performance of the specimen continued to be stable throughout the
cycle to 1.85% drift, there was evidence of diagonal cracking and localized shifting of
stresses in a larger number of studs located around the perimeter of the column. The first
evidence in the strain gauge data of a significant change in the slab condition occurred
while loading to Point 11, located north-west in the loading sequence, during the cycle to
1.85% drift. Strains measured in studs OO-SE2, OO-ES2, and R-SE3, all located south
and east of the column, decreased (Figure 4-19), while nearby stud OI-SW2 exhibited a
steep increase in strain from 0.0009 to 0.0018 (Figure 4-20). It was at this point, while
loading to Point 11 of the 1.85% drift cycle, that visual evidence of slab punching was
64
first noted on the west and south sides of the connection. Global performance, however,
remained stable throughout the 1.85% cycle.
Early in the cycle to 2.30% drift, results from several strain gauges indicated that
diagonal cracks were spreading within the slab and engaging the studs. While loading to
Point 2, located north-east of the column, studs OI-WN2 and OI-WS2, located west of
the column, exhibited strains of 0.0025 and 0.0032, nearly doubling the previous
maximum strain in these studs (see Figure 4-21 for a plot of the data from stud OI-WN2).
As the specimen was pushed towards Point 4, south of the column, strains recorded in
studs north-west of the column indicated that diagonal cracking had extended to that area
of the slab. Also, as shown in Figure 3-50, the average vertical drop of the slab surpassed
1/4 in. while the specimen was loaded to Points 4 and 5. During the load step to Point 5,
south-east of the column, strains recorded in stud OI-WN2 increased to 0.007 (Figure
4-21); the first significant yielding of an instrumented shear stud in this series of tests.
Also while loading to Point 5, Gauge BS-S3, located on the bottom mat reinforcement at
the north face of the column, showed an increase in strain from 0.0016 to 0.008 (Figure
4-22). This large increase while loading to Points 4 and 5 is consistent with the bottom
mat reinforcement being engaged as integrity reinforcement as the drop of the slab
increased.
Figure 3-42 and Figure 3-50 show that by the time Point 9 of the 2.30% drift cycle was
reached, the lateral capacity of Specimen B4 had decreased to less than 1/3 of its peak
capacity and the slab had dropped more than 1/2 in. vertically relative to the column.
However, the 2.30% drift cycle was completed and a cycle to 2.75% drift was conducted
because, although the flexural capacity of the slab had degraded to near zero, the slab
connection continued to support the target gravity shear forces until the end of the 2.75%
drift cycle (Figure 3-43). The shear stiffness of the connection, however, had degraded
such that the test needed to be paused after each quarter cycle, beginning with the third
quarter-cycle of the 2.3% drift cycle, to adjust the specimen and reapply the target gravity
loads.
65
4.2. Summary of Failure Evolution
Descriptions provided herein of the connection damage uncovered after completion of
testing suggest that there are at least three potential mechanisms that contribute to shear
failures in two-way slab-column connections subjected to combined gravity shear and
lateral displacement reversals. These mechanisms are: 1) traditional punching dominated
by diagonal cracking that tends to form a “cone” around the column, 2) shear sliding
along flexural cracks near the column face, and 3) degradation of unconfined concrete in
the connection region. In each of the specimens tested, the observed failure surface
tended to show the influence of all three mechanisms to varying extents.
A schematic of the traditionally assumed cracking at punching failure in a slab-column

connection subjected to monotonic direct punching shear is shown in Figure 4-27.
Connection damage includes flexural cracks near the column face, and flexural-shear
cracks or diagonal cracks within 1d to 2d of the face of the column. There is evidence
that diagonal cracking in the specimens tested herein began to develop at approximately
1.15-1.40% drift. The shear stud reinforcement in the tested slabs, however, was effective
at constraining the growth of these cracks and delaying the occurrence of a traditional
punching failure. This is in contrast to Specimen SB3 reported in Cheng et al. (2009),
which had shear stud reinforcement designed to resist the expected combined shear stress
based on a concrete contribution to shear strength, vc, equal to √ (psi). This specimen
failed during the cycle to 1.15% drift when diagonal cracking first developed.
Results from tests of Specimens B1 through B4 show that the shear studs, in the amounts
used, were able to bridge diagonal cracks once they formed. This led to a ductile
connection behavior dominated by flexural yielding during the cycles up to 1.60% drift.
As the connections underwent several cycles of inelastic deformation reversals, however,
extensive flexural cracking and concrete degradation due to lack of adequate concrete
confinement were observed. Prior to severe degradation of concrete, flexural cracks that
did not fully close upon unloading led to sliding along some vertical cracks, specifically
between the column face and the first row of studs or between the first and second rows
of studs. Further deformation reversals led to severe degradation of the concrete and its
66
inability to transfer diagonal compression, and thus, shear failure (see Figure 4-23, Figure
4-24, Figure 4-25, and Figure 4-26).
All possible shear failure surfaces must be considered and addressed for a reinforcement
scheme to successfully improve the drift capacity of flat-plate specimens. In addition to
restraining diagonal shear cracks, reinforcement for flat-plate slabs, particularly in
connections subjected to large gravity shear and inelastic deformation reversals induced
by earthquakes, must confine the core of the slab in order to maintain the integrity of the
concrete and ensure adequate drift capacity. Test data indicate that shear studs do not
provide the necessary confinement to ensure adequate drift capacity in connections
subjected to gravity shear ratios of approximately 50% or higher, as discussed next.
4.3. Shear Studs and Concrete Confinement

It has been argued (ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 421 1999) that due to their “almost slip-
free” headed anchorages, headed shear studs provide beneficial confinement to the
concrete in the connection region in flat-plate slabs. Such confinement would be expected
to: 1) enhance the contribution of concrete to shear capacity, and 2) maintain the integrity
of the concrete in the connection region such that specimen drift capacity is improved.
The presumption that headed shear studs provide this confinement is cited by ACI
Committee 421 (and indirectly by Committee 318) as justification for using a concrete
shear stress contribution of √ (psi) and a maximum shear stress of √ (psi) in
design of slabs with headed shear studs (compared with √ and √ (psi),
respectively, in slabs reinforced with other forms of shear reinforcement). The
performance of the specimens described in this report, however, does not support the
assertion that headed studs effectively confine concrete subjected to large deformation
reversals.
It is evident from visual observations during and after testing that the slab concrete in the
tested specimens was not confined. Rather than finding a well confined core of concrete
between the top and bottom mats of reinforcement, large, loose pieces of concrete and
67
crushed “gravel-like” debris were found after the tests were completed (Section 3.2). As
shown in Figure 4-23 through Figure 4-26, the concrete in the connection region of all
four specimens was destroyed after testing. In cases where shear studs were located in the
failure region, the concrete in the immediate vicinity of the headed studs was also not
well confined. In some cases, a cylinder of concrete around the stud rod with a diameter
smaller than the stud head remained intact after testing (Figure 4-24), indicating that it
was either confined by or bonded to the stud. In other cases, the rod of the stud was
exposed after testing, indicating that no concrete was effectively confined by the shear
stud (Figure 4-23 and Figure 4-26).
Transfer of stresses within a slab-column connection ultimately relies on the ability of the
concrete to resist diagonal compression. In the connection tests reported herein, the
headed studs, while able to bridge diagonal cracks through several displacement cycles,
could not prevent significant degradation of the concrete in the connection region. Once
substantial degradation of concrete had occurred, the required diagonal thrust in the
connection could not develop and the connection lost its ability to resist shear. Had the
headed stud reinforcement been able to effectively confine the concrete, concrete
degradation would have been delayed and a larger drift capacity would have likely been
observed.
In connections subjected to low levels of shear stress and lateral displacements, it is

possible that only limited degradation in the connection concrete with no significant
impact on drift capacity would occur. However, as the test results show, concrete
degradation in connections with shear studs subjected to gravity shear ratios of
approximately 50% could be significant during large displacement reversals. In this case,
limiting lateral displacements to 1.5% drift for loading in a single direction or to 2%
resultant drift when accounting for simultaneous biaxial lateral displacements seems
adequate.
68
4.4. Recommendations for Design
4.4.1. Contribution of Concrete to Shear Capacity
As mentioned previously, ACI Committee 318 recently approved the elimination, for the
2014 Building Code, of Section 21.13.6(a) of the 2011 Code. This change occurred
during the course of this investigation. Section 21.13.6(a) allows the design of slab-
column connections not part of the seismic-force-resisting system to be performed based
on the calculation of a combined shear stress due to gravity shear and moment transfer at
the design lateral displacement. If such a design is to be performed (while the provisions
of the 2011 Building Code are still in effect or as allowed by other building codes), it is
recommended that the contribution of concrete to shear strength be neglected (i.e.,
) when designing shear stud reinforced slab-column connections with gravity shear
ratios comparable to those applied in this study (50%) and in which large drift capacity is
required (e.g., greater than 1.5% drift).
A previously tested flat-plate slab (Cheng et al. 2009) with shear studs provided
according to the 2008 ACI Code provisions, such that √ (psi) and
√ ( ) √ ( ) (where is the largest applied shear stress calculated

from the test results) failed during the cycle at 1.15% lateral drift (1.60% resultant drift)
shortly after the flexural reinforcement in the slab began to yield. Specimen B2 (of this
study), on the other hand, was designed with shear studs such that √ (psi).
Based on the maximum calculated shear stresses of √ (psi), the maximum
theoretical concrete contribution to shear strength was approximately √ (psi). This

specimen was able to sustain a cycle to 1.85% lateral drift (2.60% resultant drift) prior to
failure. This level of drift, which is comparable with drift demands expected during a
large seismic event, was therefore achieved when less than √ (psi) of shear stress was
theoretically required of the concrete.
In Specimens B1, B3, and B4, shear stud reinforcement was designed to provide
sufficient shear strength to resist the shear demand expected after the flexural capacity of
the slab was reached (such that ). Specimens B1 and B3, with shear studs
proportioned such that √ (psi), showed a slightly larger deformation capacity
69
as these two specimens were able to maintain their gravity load through part or the
totality of the cycle at 2.30% drift. On the other hand, Specimen B4, with √
(psi) and significantly reduced stud spacing within the first three peripheral lines, was
able to maintain its gravity load capacity up through the cycle at 2.75% drift.
4.4.2. Minimum Shear Stud Reinforcement and Maximum Peripheral Shear Stud
Spacing
Specimen B2 was reinforced with shear reinforcement such that √ (psi). As
discussed earlier, this specimen exhibited the first signs of punching shear failure during
the cycle to 1.85% drift (2.60% resultant drift), but gravity load capacity was maintained
throughout the cycle to this drift level. This suggests that the minimum shear
reinforcement amount required in Section 21.13.6 of the 2008 and 2011 ACI Building
Codes when neither a drift nor a combined shear stress check is performed is adequate for
connections subjected to a gravity shear ratio of up to 50% and resultant drifts from
biaxial displacements of 2.0%. For larger drifts, as indicated by the behavior of Specimen
B2, significant shear related damage and possibly loss of gravity load capacity could be
expected. The behavior of Specimens B3 and B4 indicate that a more stringent spacing
requirement for shear studs within each of the first three peripheral lines, and possibly a
larger amount of shear stud reinforcement, should be used in order to further increase
drift capacity for connections subjected to gravity shear ratios approximately equal to or
greater than 50%.
ACI 318-08 provisions require that the maximum spacing between studs in the first
peripheral line does not exceed 2d. Specimens B1, B2, and B3, which were able to
maintain their gravity load capacity through at least the full cycle at 1.85% drift, had
maximum stud spacing of approximately 1.5d in the first peripheral line and 2.0d, 2.9d,
and 2.0d in the third peripheral line, respectively. The maximum stud spacing in the third
peripheral line of Specimen B4, on the other hand, was 1.4d. Specimen B4 was able to
maintain its gravity load capacity throughout the entire cycle at 2.75% drift. Although the
amount of shear stud reinforcement provided in Specimen B4 was substantially greater
than that provided in the other three specimens, the closer stud spacing within the first
three peripheral lines, which helped delay concrete degradation through cycling, rather
70
than the increased theoretical shear capacity, is believed to be responsible for the
increased drift capacity exhibited by this specimen. Thus, it seems sensible, based on the
limited data, to limit stud spacing within the first three peripheral lines to 1.5d for
resultant drifts, from biaxial displacements, greater than 2.0%.
4.4.3. Maximum Connection Shear Capacity

If a combined shear stress check due to gravity shear and moment transfer is used for
shear design of slab-column connections (while the provisions of the 2011 Building Code
are still in effect or as allowed by other building codes), the maximum shear stress for
slab-column connections reinforced with headed shear studs is recommended to be
reduced from √ to √ (psi), as used for other types of shear reinforcement.
Although the specimens tested in this investigation were not subjected to such large shear
stresses, because the flexural strength of the slab limited the peak combined shear stress
to approximately √ (psi), the test results provide evidence of the inability of shear
studs to provide confinement to the concrete in connections subjected to large
deformation reversals. The fact that severe concrete deterioration in the test connections
started to occur during the cycle at 1.85% drift, and the calculated peak combined shear
stress did not exceed √ (psi), suggests that a more severe (and likely earlier)
concrete degradation could be expected in connections with shear stresses close to the
current shear stress limit of √ (psi).
4.5. Drift and Gravity-Shear Ratio

Figure 4-28 shows a plot of drift capacity versus gravity shear ratio for previous slab-
column tests reported in the literature (listed in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2). The results of
the four specimens in the current study are included in this figure for comparison. Drift
capacities of Specimens B1, B2, B3, and B4 were taken as the maximum resultant drift
achieved prior to loss of gravity load capacity. The gravity shear ratio used for the
specimens was calculated using the applied gravity load at the time of failure. Drift
capacity versus gravity shear ratio interaction for slab-column connections without shear
71
reinforcement in the 2008 ACI Code (ACI Committee 318-08) and in Hueste and Wight
(1999) are also plotted in Figure 4-28.
As can be seen in Figure 4-28, the ultimate drift capacity of the specimens tested in this
investigation, while greater than that of specimens without shear reinforcement, was
substantially lower than the drift capacity of other test connections with shear stud
reinforcement. This lower drift capacity is likely the result of the following two factors
that apply to the specimens tested in this investigation: 1) the relatively low, but realistic,
flexural reinforcement ratio of 0.7% used in the column strip (as discussed in Section 2.2,
the flexural reinforcement ratio used is consistent with reinforcement amounts used in
reinforced concrete two-way slabs), and 2) the application of biaxial rather than uni-axial
displacements.
72
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
An experimental study was conducted on four subassemblies of non-prestressed concrete

flat-plate slab-column connections reinforced with headed shear studs, loaded to a
gravity-shear ratio of 50%, and subjected to biaxial lateral displacements. The intent of
these tests was to investigate the effectiveness of shear stud reinforcement as a means to
increase the shear resistance and deformation capacity of reinforced concrete slab-column
connections. This study was motivated by results from a test of a similar specimen
(Cheng et al. 2010) that showed the current (2008 and 2011) ACI 318 Code provisions
for headed shear stud reinforcement may be non-conservative when used to design non-
prestressed slab-column frames that are not part of the seismic-force-resisting system.
The results reported by Cheng et al. showed limited drift capacity when using minimum
shear stud reinforcement required by the 2008 and 2011 ACI Building Codes when
combined shear stresses due to gravity shear and moment transfer are used for design; the
specimen failed in punching shear during the cycle at 1.15% drift in each perpendicular
loading direction.
The slabs in the specimens described herein had a clear span-to-thickness ratio of 31.3,
which is close to the upper limit defined in the 2008 ACI Building Code for slabs not
checked for deflections and consistent with ratios found in design practice. The tension
reinforcement ratio of 0.6% based on the slab thickness and 0.7% based on the slab
average effective depth is also consistent with reinforcement amounts used in design
practice. The slabs were nominally identical aside from the layout of shear stud
reinforcement. Specimens B1 and B2 were reinforced with twelve stud rails placed in a
cruciform pattern, with studs spaced at 0.5d and 0.75d perpendicular to the column faces,
respectively. The area of studs in Specimen B1 satisfied the strength requirements of ACI
318-08 neglecting the concrete contribution to shear capacity. Specimen B2 was designed
to satisfy the minimum area of shear studs required when a shear stress or drift check is
not performed in design ( √ [psi]). Specimen B3 was designed with the same
area of shear studs as Specimen B1, but one stud rail was located at each corner of the
column and oriented at a 45-degree angle to the column principal axes. In Specimen B4,
73
additional rails were placed orthogonally to the column to achieve a closer and more
uniform stud spacing within the first three stud peripheral lines. The maximum stud
spacing in the first peripheral row was 1.5d in Specimens B1, B2 and B3, and 1.25d in
Specimen B4. In the third peripheral row of studs, the maximum spacing was 2d, 2.9d,
2d, and 1.3d in Specimens B1, B2, B3, and B4, respectively. In each specimen, flexural
yielding limited the lateral strength of the test specimens. Shear-related cracking and
degradation of the concrete in the slab limited the drift capacity of the specimens.
The following conclusions were drawn based on the results of these tests. As the tests
were not intended to represent prestressed (e.g., post-tensioned) slabs, caution should be
exercised when evaluating the implications of these conclusions for the design of
connections between prestressed concrete slabs and columns.
 Compared to previously tested slab-column connections with shear stud

reinforcement reported in the literature, the four specimens tested in this
investigation exhibited substantially lower drift capacities. This lower drift
capacity is believed to be due to: 1) the lower, but realistic, flexural reinforcement
ratio of 0.7% (based on the average slab effective depth) used in the slab column
strip of the test specimens, and 2) the application of biaxial rather than uni-axial
lateral displacements. The first sign of punching shear-related damage in the test
specimens was observed during the cycle at 1.85% drift (2.60% resultant drift).
Loss of gravity load carrying capacity in Specimens B1 and B2 occurred during
the cycle at 2.30% drift (3.20% resultant drift). Specimens B3 and B4 continued
to carry imposed gravity loads until the tests were terminated, at 2.30% and
2.75% drift (3.20% and 3.90% resultant drift), respectively.
 Visual observations indicate that shear studs did not provide adequate
confinement to the concrete in the connection region. Severe concrete degradation
of connection concrete in Specimens B1, B2 and B3 occurred during the cycles at
1.85% drift and higher. In Specimen B4, with a maximum stud spacing of 1.4d
within the first three peripheral lines, concrete degradation was slightly delayed
74
compared to the other three specimens, allowing the performance of one
additional drift cycle.
 In the test of Specimen B2, in which shear stud reinforcement was provided such
that √ (psi), the first signs of punching shear failure were observed
during the cycle at 1.85% drift in each perpendicular direction (2.6% resultant
drift). This suggests that the minimum shear reinforcement amount required in
Section 21.13.6 of the 2008 and 2011 ACI Building Codes when neither a drift
nor a combined shear stress check is performed is adequate for connections
subjected to a gravity shear ratio of up to 50% and resultant drifts from biaxial
displacements of up to 2.0%. The behavior of Specimens B3 and B4 indicate that
a more stringent spacing requirement for shear studs within each of the first three
peripheral lines (approximately 2 slab thicknesses), and possibly an increase in
the amount of shear stud reinforcement, is necessary to further increase drift
capacity for connections subjected to gravity shear ratios approximately equal to
or greater than 50%.
 Based on the better performance exhibited by Specimen B4 compared to the other

three test specimens, particularly with regard to a delay in concrete degradation, it
seems sensible to limit stud spacing within the first three peripheral lines to 1.5d
for connections subjected to gravity shear ratios similar to those applied in this
study (50%) and resultant drifts, from biaxial displacements, greater than 2%.
 If a combined shear stress check due to gravity load and unbalanced moment is
used for shear design of slab-column connections with shear stud reinforcement
(while the provisions of the 2011 Building Code are still in effect or as allowed by
other building codes), the concrete contribution to shear strength is recommended
to be neglected (i.e., ) and the maximum shear stress reduced from √ to
√ (psi), as used for other types of shear reinforcement. This recommendation

is based on the severe concrete degradation observed in the test specimens
attributed to lack of confinement in the connection.
75
 Placement of stud heads on top of flexural slab reinforcement substantially
improved shear stud anchorage. Severe double curvature bending at failure was
typical in base rails supporting studs anchored by top slab reinforcement as the
bar anchorage prevented any significant downward movement of the stud.
 When yielding of the shear stud reinforcement was detected, failure of the slab
followed shortly after. Although a slab can fail in shear without yielding of the
shear stud reinforcement, test results indicate that once a single stud yields,
diagonal cracks are no longer effectively restrained and punching is likely to
develop.
 In the three specimens where vertical displacement of the slab was measured
around the perimeter of the column, an average drop of approximately 1/4 in.
coincided with imminent failure of the slab in punching.
 After punching in Specimen B2 occurred, several studs fractured at their base

connection with the rails. Stringent quality control is thus required to prevent
fracture of studs at their bases.
76
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318. "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary (ACI 318-08)." American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan, 2008.
ACI Committee 318. "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary (ACI 318-11)." American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2011.
ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 352. Guide for Design of Slab-Column Connections in

Monolithic Concrete Structures, ACI 352.1R-11. American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, 2011.
ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 421. Shear Reinforcement for Slabs (ACI 421.1R-99).
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1999.
ASTM Standard A370. Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of
Steel Products. DOI: 10.1520/A0370-12A , West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International, 2012.
ASTM Standard A615. Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel
Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. DOI: 10.1520/A0615_A0615M-09B , West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2009.
ASTM Standard C39. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens. DOI: 10.1520/C0039_C0039M-12A, West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM International, 2012.
Bresler, B. "Design Criteria for Reinforced Columns Under Axial Load and Biaxial
Bending." Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 1960: 481-490.
Broms, Carl Erik. "Ductility of Flat Plates: Comparison of Shear Reinforcement

Systems." ACI Structural Journal 104, no. 66 (Nov-Dec 2007a): 703-711.
77
Broms, Carl Erik. "Flat Plates in Seismic Areas: Comparison of Shear Reinforcement
Systems." ACI Structural Journal 104, no. 64 (Nov.-Dec. 2007b): 712-721.
Cheng, Min-Yuan, and Gustavo J. Parra-Montesinos. "Punching Shear Strength and

Deformation Capacity of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections
Under Earthquake-Type Loading." Report No. UMCEE 09-01, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 2009, 334.
Cheng, Min-Yuan, J. Gustavo Parra-Montesinos, and Carol Shield. "Shear Strength and
Drift Capacity of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections Subjected
to Biaxial Displacements." Journal of Structural Engineering 136, no. 9
(September 2010): 1078-1088.
Comité Européen de Normalisation. "Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures — Part

1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings." English Version, EN 1992-1-1:2004: E,
Brussels, Belgium, 225 pp.
Dilger, Walter H., and H. Cao. "Behavior of Slab-Column Connections Under Renersed
Cyclic Loading." Proceedings of the 2nd international conference of High-Rise
Bulidings. China, 1991.
Dilger, Walter H., and S. J. Brown. "Earthquake Resistance of Slab-Column

Connections." Proceedings of Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Conference.
Winnipeg, Canada, 1994. 388-397.
Dilger, Walter, and Amin Ghali. "Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Slabs." Journal of
the Structural Division 107, no. 12 (1981): 2403-2420.
Durrani, Ahmad J., Y Du, and Y. H. Luo. "Seismic Resistance of Nonductile Slab-
Column Connections in Existing Flat-Slab Buildings." ACI Structural Journal 92,
no. 46 (July-Aug. 1995): 476-487.
Farhey, Daniel N., Moshe A. Adin, and David Z. Yankelevsky. "RC Flat Slab-Column
Subassemblages Under Lateral Loading." Journal of the Structural Division 119,
no. 6 (June 1993): 1903-1916.
78
Ghali, Amin, M. Z. Elmasri, and Walter Dilger. "Punching of Flat Plates under Static and
Dynamic Horizontal Forces." ACI Journal 73, no. 10 (Oct. 1976): 566-572.
Hawkins, Neil M, D. Mitchell, and M. S. Sheu. "Cyclic Behavior of Six Reinforced

Concrete Slab-Column Specimens Transfering Moment and Shear." Progress
Report, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1974.
Hueste, Mary Beth D., and James K. Wight. "Nonlinear Punching Shear Failure Model
for Interior Slab-Column Connections." Journal of Structural Engineering,
September 1999: 997-1008.
Islam, Shafiqul, and Robert Park. "Tests on Slab-Column Connections with Shear and
Unbalanced Flexure." Journal of the Structural Division 1012, no. ST3 (March
1976): 549-568.
Megally, Sami H. "Punching Shear Resistance of Concrete Slabs to Gravity and

Earthquake Forces." PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1998, 468.
Megally, Sami, and Amin Ghali. "Seismic Behavior of Edge Column-Slab Connections
with Stud Shear Reinforcement." ACI Structural Journal 97, no. 6 (Jan.-Feb.
2000): 53-60.
Morrison, Denby G, and Mete A. Sozen. "Response of Reinforced Concrete Plate-

Column Connections to Dynamic and Static Horizontal Loads." PFR-78-16318,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1981, 272.
Pan, Austin, and Jack P. Moehle. "Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete
Flat Plates." ACI Structural Journal 86, no. 3 (May-June 1989): 250-258.
Robertson, Ian N., and Gaur Johnson. "Cyclic Lateral Loading of Nonductile Slab-
Column Connections." ACI Structural Journal 103, no. 37 (May-June 2006): 356-
364.
79
Robertson, Ian N., Kawai Tadashi, James Lee, and Brian Enomoto. "Cyclic Testing of
Slab-Column Connections with Shear Reinforcement." ACI Structural Journal
99, no. 62 (Sept.-Oct. 2002): 605-613.
Robertson, Ian Nicol, and Ahmad J. Duranni. "Seismic Response of Connections in

Indeterminate Flat-Slab Subassemblies." Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, Rice University, 1990, 284.
Scribner, C.F., and J.K. Wight. "Strength Decay in R/C Beams under Load Reversals."
ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 1980: 861-876.
Tan, Y., and S. Teng. "Interiar Slab-Rectangular Column Connections Under Biaxial
Lateral Loadings." ACI Special Publication 232, no. 09 (October 2005): 147-174.
Wey, Eric H., and Ahmad J. Durrani. "Seismic Response of Interior Slab-Column
Connections with Shear Capitals." ACI Structural Journal 89, no. 65 (Nov.-Dec.
1992): 682-691.
Wight, James K., and Mete A Sozen. "Strength Decay of RC Columns under Shear
Reversals." Journal of the Structural Division, 1975: 1053-1065.
Zee, H. L., and Jack P Moehle. "Behavior of Interior and Exterior Flat Plate Connections
Subjected to Inelastic Load Reversals." Report No. UCB/EERC-84/07,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California-Berkley,
Berkley, California, 1984, 130.
80
TABLES
2. CHAPTER 4 TABLES
Table 2-1: Slab and Connection Details for Each Specimen
Reinforcement Number of Stud Spacing

Effective Stud Spacing on Radial
Specimen Dimensions Ratio in Effective Orthogonal Rails on Radial
Depth (d) Orthogonal Rails Rails?
Width per Column Face Rails
B1 17 ft x 17 ft x 6 in. 0.006 4.75 in. 3 0.50d (2-3/8”) N N/A

B2 17 ft x 17 ft x 6 in. 0.006 4.75 in 3 0.75d (3-1/2”) N N/A
B3 17 ft x 17 ft x 6 in. 0.006 4.75 in. 2 0.50d (2-3/8”) Y 0.50d (2-3/8”)
B4 17 ft x 17 ft x 6 in. 0.006 4.75 in. 4 0.50d (2-3/8”) Y 0.70d (3-3/8”)
81
Table 2-2: Strain Gauge Locations
Bottom Mat Reinforcement

X-Direction Y-Direction
ty lx tx ly
Gauge Gauge
[in] [in] [in] [in]
BS1 -4 19-7/8 BE1 -4 19-7/8
BS2 -4 10-3/8 BE2 -4 10-3/8
BS3 -4 -10-3/8 BE3 -4 -10-3/8
BS4 -4 -19-7/8 BE4 -4 -19-7/8
BS5 -16 10-3/8 BE5 -16 19-7/8
BS6 -16 -10-3/8 BE6 -16 10-3/8
BS7 -16 -19-7/8 BE7 -16 -10-3/8
BS8 -40 10-3/8 BE8 -40 10-3/8
BS9 -40 -10-3/8 BE9 -40 -10-3/8
BS10 -64 10-3/8 BE10 -64 10-3/8
BS11 -64 -10-3/8 BE11 -64 -10-3/8
Top Mat Reinforcement
X-Direction Y-Direction
ty lx tx ly
Gauge Gauge
[in] [in] [in] [in]
TS1 -3 19-7/8 TE1 -3 19-7/8
TS2 -3 10-3/8 TE2 -3 10-3/8
TS3 -3 -10-3/8 TE3 -3 -10-3/8
TS4 -3 -19-7/8 TE4 -3 -19-7/8
TS5 -15 10-3/8 TE5 -15 19-7/8
TS6 -15 0 TE6 -15 10-3/8
TS7 -15 -10-3/8 TE7 -15 0
TS8 -15 -19-7/8 TE8 -15 -10-3/8
TS9 -27 -10-3/8 TE9 -27 19-7/8
TS10 -27 -19-7/8 TE10 -27 10-3/8
TS11 -39 -10-3/8 TE11 -39 10-3/8
TS12 -57 -10-3/8 TE12 -57 10-3/8
TS13 -81 -10-3/8 TE13 -81 10-3/8
82
Table 2-3: Average Concrete Cylinder Strengths [psi]
Specimen Base Block1 Bottom Column1 Slab2 Top Column/Block1
6700 6800 5800 7300
B1 7500 5600 6100 7000
7300 6600 5800 6900
Average 7200 6300 5900 7100

6800 7200 5100 4800
B2 5600 6500 4700 4800
6600 6600 5000 4800
Average 6300 6800 4900 4800

7200 7700 5500 7200
B3 7900 7500 5600 6600
7500 8500 5900 7200
Average 7500 7900 5700 7000

7500 7200 6500 6900
B4 7000 7500 5800 7300
7500 6900 5900 7000
Average 7300 7200 6100 7100

1) Tested after test had been completed (~90 days from casting)
2) Tested on the day prior to specimen testing
83
Table 2-4: Strength of Steel Reinforcement [ksi]
Bar Size
Specimen #3 #4 #5 #6
Yield Ultimate Yield Ultimate Yield Ultimate Yield Ultimate
NA NA 67.6 110.4 NA NA 65.9 94.1
B1 NA NA 68.1 110.3 NA NA 59.7 99.1
NA NA 67.1 110.1 NA NA 63.6 95.0
Average NA NA 67.6 110.3 NA NA 63.1 96.1

NA NA 70.1 111.6 NA NA 65.9 94.1
B2 NA NA 69.8 112 NA NA 59.7 99.1
NA NA 70.0 111.8 NA NA 63.3 95.0
Average NA NA 70.0 111.8 NA NA 63.1 96.1

73.3 110.9 64.7 100.0 67.6 111.9 66.9 104.6
B3 71.4 109.7 65.0 100.3 66.3 110.3 66.0 104.9
72.1 110.3 64.5 100.0 67 111.5 65.9 104.7
Average 72.3 110.3 64.7 100.1 67.0 111.2 66.3 104.7

65.1* 101.8*
67.9 101.6 66.8 108.2 66.1 108.9
67.9* 103.7*
65.7* 101.3*
B4 70.1 104.8 66.7 108.2 65.0 108.7
65.8† 101.9†
66.8† 106.3†
70.3 106.3 68.6 111.0 66.2 109.2
67.2† 106.4†
66.2* 102.3*
Average 69.4 104.2 67.4 109.1 66.2 108.9
66.6† 104.9†
*Column vertical reinforcing bars below the splice (first 4 ft of column)
†Column vertical reinforcing bars above the splice
84
Table 2-5: Applied Gravity Shear to Connection
Concrete Weight of Steel Tubes,

Required Slab Total Dead Target Applied
Compressive 1 Threaded Rods and
Specimen Shear Weight Weight Force
Strength Instrumentation2
[kips] [kips] [kips] [kips]
[psi] [kips]
B1 5900 60.7 21 4 25 35.7
B2 4900 54.8 21 4 25 29.8
B3 5700 59.4 21 4 25 34.4
B4 6100 61.5 21 4 25 36.5

1) This value includes the following: 204” x 204” x 6” concrete slab, minus concrete within the critical perimeter (20-3/4” x 20-3/4” x 6”). The assumed density
of concrete was 150 lb/ft3
2) This value included four 6” x 12” x 3/16” steel tubes (two of 160” and two of 192” in length respectively); and four 6” x 12” x 1/4" steel tubes (two of 160”
and two of 192” in length respectively). The assumed density of steel was 480 lb/ft3. Assumed weight of threaded rods and instrumentation was 500 lbs.
85
Table 2-6: Lateral Story Drift at Each Cycle
Target Maximum Resultant

Cycle Unidirectional Drift1 (Biaxial) Drift1
[%] [%]
1 0.25 0.35
2 0.45 0.64
3 0.70 0.99
4 0.90 1.27
5 1.15 1.63
6 1.40 1.98
7 1.60 2.26
8 1.85 2.62
9 2.30 3.25
10 2.75 3.89
11 3.70 5.23
1) Refers to the total specimen drift (1.5 stories)
86
3. CHAPTER 4 TABLES
Table 3-1: Specimen B1 - Peak Resultant Lateral Forces (in kips) Achieved throughout Test
Drift Point on Cloverleaf (Figure 2-28)

Cycle
[%] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.25 6.4 8.0 5.4 7.5 7.9 5.2 7.4 9.1 4.6 6.2 8.2 6.3
0.45 10.1 12.2 8.3 10.5 11.4 7.4 11.5 12.6 6.6 9.6 12.3 8.6
0.70 12.2 15.0 9.9 12.1 13.7 8.7 13.6 15.5 8.0 11.7 15.0 9.8
0.90 13.0 16.6 10.7 13.0 15.1 9.9 14.0 16.8 8.9 12.7 17.0 11.1
1.15 13.5* 17.4 11.3* 13.5 15.7* 10.3* 14.9* 17.8* 9.2* 13.3* 17.4* 11.5*
1.40 13.2 17.5* 11.0 13.7* 15.4 10.0 14.7 17.8* 8.9 13.1 17.3 11.2
1.60 13.1 16.8 10.7 13.6 14.5 9.5 14.4 17.6 8.5 12.9 17.3 10.5
1.85 12.8 16.0 10.5 12.9 13.8 8.9 14.1 16.4 7.7 12.9 16.4 9.7
2.30 12.5 12.5 8.5 11.2 8.4 6.2 - - - - - -
* Peak value for point for entire test
Bolded – At least 90% of peak force recorded at point
87

Cycle
[%] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.25 6.7 7.3 4.8 7.8 8.4 4.6 6.7 8.7 5.2 6.0 7.7 5.4
0.45 10.4 11.0 7.6 11.1 12.1 7.0 9.8 12.0 7.1 9.1 11.2 7.5
0.70 12.1 13.7 8.7 12.5 14.2 8.6 11.6 14.4 8.3 10.5 13.4 8.9
0.90 13.2 15.5 9.5 13.3 15.8 9.6 12.5 15.7 9.4 11.1 14.9 9.7
1.15 13.4 16.2 9.9 13.6 16.8 10.0 13.4 16.9 9.8 11.6 15.8 10.0
1.40 13.4 16.8* 10.2 14.0* 17.0* 10.1* 13.3 17.1* 10.0* 12.1 16.2* 10.0
1.60 13.5* 16.0 10.2* 14.0* 16.5 9.5 13.6* 16.7 9.9 12.1* 16.0 10.1*
1.85 13.0 15.0 9.8 14.0* 15.3 8.0 13.1 15.2 8.1 11.5 13.4 8.2
2.30 10.6 7.1 6.5 - - - - - - - - -
88

Cycle
[%] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.25 9.8 10.4 5.7 7.7 10.3 7.0 6.8 9.5 6.6 7.6 8.1 5.3
0.45 12.6 14.3 8.1 11.2 13.9 9.4 10.2 12.5 7.8 10.6 11.7 7.4
0.70 14.5 16.8 9.7 12.7 16.0 10.9 11.8 14.7 9.1 12.2 14.2 8.6
0.90 15.6 18.2 10.6 13.6 17.5 12.0 12.9 16.3 10.2 13.3 15.7 9.5
1.15 16.0 19.3 11.2* 14.4 18.6 12.5* 13.3 17.1 10.6* 13.7 16.3 9.8*
1.40 16.2* 19.6* 11.2* 14.6* 18.9* 12.4 13.4* 17.4* 10.6* 14.0 16.7* 9.7
1.60 16.2* 19.3 11.2* 14.4 18.9* 12.2 13.3 16.9 10.6* 14.1* 16.5 9.5
1.85 15.2 18.1 10.3 14.2 17.6 11.0 12.5 15.4 9.9 13.4 13.8 8.0
2.30 15.2 14.7 7.7 12.0 11.0 7.7 7.9 8.6 6.9 9.5 8.1 4.8
89

Cycle
[%] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.25 8.3 9.2 5.8 7.7 9.4 5.9 7.5 9.5 5.6 6.8 8.8 6.2
0.45 11.1 12.9 8.0 11.1 12.6 8.0 11.1 13.2 7.5 9.7 12.0 8.3
0.70 13.2 15.4 9.5 12.8 15.3 9.7 12.9 15.7 9.0 11.4 14.6 9.7
0.90 14.1 17.6 10.5 14.4 17.1 10.8 13.5 17.3 10.3 12.6 16.3 10.6
1.15 15.1 18.8 11.2 15.1 18.4 11.7 14.6 18.6 11.2 13.6 17.6 11.4
1.40 15.6 19.9 11.6 15.5 19.3 12.3* 15.1 19.3* 11.4 13.9 18.2* 11.8
1.60 16.0 20.1* 11.7* 15.8* 19.4* 12.2 15.2* 19.3* 11.5* 14.0* 18.1 11.3
1.85 15.5 18.8 11.1 15.4 18.4 11.0 14.8 18.2 10.5 13.5 16.5 10.2
2.30 16.1* 16.5 9.9 15.6 14.7 8.6 13.6 12.8 7.4 10.1 10.0 6.6
2.75 10.0 10.0 6.8 9.9 8.9 5.8 9.0 8.9 5.9 9.2 8.1 6.0
90
Table 3-5: Peak Lateral Forces Achieved throughout Tests
Point on cloverleaf pattern B1 B2 B3 B4

Maximum Resultant Force [ kip] 13.51 13.50 16.20 16.11
1
Drift Level [%] 1.15 1.60 1.60 2.30
2
Drift Level [%] 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.60
3
Drift Level [%] 1.15 1.40 1.40 1.60
4
Drift Level [%] 1.40 1.85 1.40 1.60
5
Drift Level [%] 1.15 1.40 1.60 1.60
6
Drift Level [%] 1.15 1.40 1.40 1.60
7
Drift Level [%] 1.15 1.60 1.40 1.60
8
Drift Level [%] 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.60
9
Drift Level [%] 1.15 1.40 1.60 1.60
10
Drift Level [%] 1.15 1.60 1.60 1.60
11
Drift Level [%] 1.60 1.40 1.40 1.60
12
Drift Level [%] 1.15 1.60 1.15 1.40
91
Table 3-6: Shear Stress at Critical Section for Specimen B1
Peak Lateral Unbalanced

Drift Level Gravity Shear Normalized Shear Stress [psi]
Force Moment
% Point [kip] [kip-in]

Force Ratio
[kip] [%] √ √ √ √ √ √ √
dT d2 x y MubY MubX
0.30 1 -0.1 6.4 58.7 48.4 -11 504 1.96 2.89 2.91
0.45 2 -6.1 5.3 57.5 47.4 486 330 2.81 2.52 3.43
0.30 3 -4.6 -2.9 57.2 47.1 351 -271 2.55 2.39 3.06
0.30 4 7.4 -1.5 56.1 46.3 -604 -113 2.98 2.06 3.20
0.45 5 5.1 6.0 55.5 45.7 -458 447 2.69 2.67 3.54
0.30 6 -1.0 5.1 55.8 46 121 324 2.06 2.44 2.67
0.25
0.30 7 0.0 -7.4 55.3 45.5 0 -657 1.82 3.06 3.06
0.45 8 6.6 -6.3 54.4 44.9 -541 -539 2.81 2.81 3.83
0.30 9 4.5 1.2 54.7 45.1 -387 61 2.54 1.92 2.65
0.30 10 -6.2 0.5 55.2 45.5 508 -60 2.78 1.93 2.89
0.45 11 -4.8 -6.6 54.8 45.1 398 -578 2.56 2.89 3.64
0.30 12 1.8 -6.0 54.6 45 -161 -459 2.10 2.66 2.96
0.60 1 -0.1 10.1 58.9 48.6 -26 841 1.99 3.52 3.57
0.90 2 -9.5 7.6 58.6 48.3 773 580 3.39 3.03 4.48
0.65 3 -7.2 -4.2 58.6 48.3 544 -350 2.96 2.60 3.62
0.65 4 10.4 -1.6 57.4 47.3 -901 -126 3.59 2.13 3.83
0.90 5 7.2 8.9 56.6 46.6 -658 738 3.11 3.26 4.50
0.45 0.65 6 -2.3 7.0 57.3 47.2 186 478 2.23 2.78 3.13
0.65 7 -0.1 -11.5 56.5 46.6 11.1 -1020 1.88 3.78 3.80
0.90 8 9.0 -8.8 55.2 45.5 -774 -754 3.28 3.24 4.70
0.65 9 6.5 1.4 55.8 46 -511 101 2.81 2.04 3.00
0.65 10 -9.6 0.2 56.3 46.4 782 -84 3.33 2.02 3.49
0.90 11 -7.3 -10.0 55.5 45.8 611 -887 2.98 3.50 4.65
92
0.65 12 2.4 -8.3 55.6 45.9 -202 -636 2.21 3.03 3.41
0.95 1 -0.4 12.2 59 48.7 -5 1060 1.96 3.94 3.95
1.35 2 -11.7 9.5 58.5 48.2 981 742 3.77 3.32 5.17
0.95 3 -9.0 -4.1 58.7 48.4 690 -364 3.24 2.62 3.92
0.95 4 12.0 -1.7 57.2 47.2 -1040 -105 3.84 2.08 4.04
1.30 5 8.4 10.8 56.8 46.8 -765 937 3.31 3.64 5.07
0.95 6 -3.0 8.1 57.8 47.6 236 618 2.35 3.07 3.52
0.70
0.95 7 0.0 -13.6 57.2 47.2 18 -1190 1.92 4.12 4.16
1.35 8 11.2 -10.7 56.2 46.3 -953 -900 3.64 3.54 5.33
0.95 9 7.7 2.0 56.6 46.7 -612 142 3.02 2.14 3.29
0.95 10 -11.7 -0.1 57.1 47.1 954 -86 3.68 2.05 3.84
1.30 11 -9.0 -12.0 56.2 46.3 733 -1070 3.23 3.86 5.24
0.95 12 2.4 -9.5 56 46.1 -229 -749 2.28 3.26 3.69
1.25 1 -0.5 13.0 60 49.4 5 1150 1.98 4.14 4.15
1.80 2 -13.0 10.3 59.6 49.1 1110 837 4.05 3.54 5.63
1.25 3 -9.8 -4.3 59.4 49 751 -381 3.38 2.68 4.09
1.25 4 12.9 -1.7 57.9 47.8 -1120 -93 4.02 2.08 4.19
1.75 5 9.3 11.9 57.5 47.4 -835 1050 3.47 3.87 5.45
1.25 6 -3.1 9.5 58.3 48 254 707 2.40 3.25 3.73
0.90
1.25 7 0.0 -14.0 57.9 47.7 6.75 -1250 1.92 4.26 4.28
1.80 8 12.3 -11.5 56.9 46.9 -1060 -963 3.87 3.68 5.68
1.25 9 8.6 2.3 57.1 47.1 -684 176 3.17 2.22 3.50
1.25 10 -12.7 -0.1 57.6 47.5 1040 -82 3.86 2.05 4.01
1.75 11 -10.0 -13.8 57 47 806 -1180 3.40 4.11 5.62
1.25 12 3.0 -10.7 56.6 46.7 -274 -819 2.39 3.41 3.93
1.55 1 -0.6 13.5 60.4 49.8 7 1170 2.00 4.19 4.20
2.25 2 -13.7 10.8 59.5 49 1160 866 4.15 3.59 5.78
1.55 3 -10.5 -4.3 59.6 49.1 795 -386 3.46 2.69 4.19
1.15
1.55 4 13.4 -1.6 58.3 48.1 -1160 -82 4.11 2.08 4.26
2.15 5 9.6 12.5 57.7 47.5 -857 1100 3.51 3.97 5.58
1.55 6 -3.4 9.8 58.3 48.1 291 718 2.47 3.28 3.82
93
1.55 7 0.1 -14.9 58.4 48.1 8 -1270 1.94 4.31 4.33
2.25 8 13.1 -12.0 57 47 -1100 -980 3.95 3.73 5.80
1.55 9 8.8 2.5 56.9 46.9 -690 196 3.17 2.24 3.54
1.55 10 -13.3 -0.1 57.5 47.4 1060 -64 3.89 2.02 4.01
2.15 11 -10.6 -13.8 57.3 47.2 808 -1200 3.41 4.14 5.66
1.55 12 2.8 -11.1 56.9 46.9 -279 -825 2.40 3.42 3.95
1.90 1 -0.6 13.2 59.8 49.3 10.1 1070 1.99 3.99 4.01
2.65 2 -13.8 10.7 57.7 47.5 1120 795 4.01 3.39 5.50
1.85 3 -10.1 -4.2 57.5 47.4 703 -394 3.22 2.64 3.96
1.85 4 13.6 -1.7 55.8 46 -1090 -106 3.88 2.03 4.08
2.55 5 9.3 12.2 54.3 44.8 -786 1030 3.27 3.73 5.21
1.85 6 -3.6 9.3 55.2 45.5 272 642 2.33 3.03 3.54
1.40
1.85 7 0.1 -14.7 55.5 45.7 6.38 -1180 1.84 4.05 4.07
2.65 8 13.0 -12.1 53.1 43.8 -1060 -926 3.75 3.50 5.49
1.85 9 8.6 2.4 52.9 43.6 -641 196 2.95 2.11 3.32
1.85 10 -13.1 -0.2 53.9 44.5 981 -60 3.63 1.89 3.74
2.60 11 -10.5 -13.8 52.9 43.6 757 -1140 3.17 3.89 5.31
1.85 12 3.1 -10.8 52.6 43.4 -272 -753 2.24 3.15 3.66
2.15 1 -0.7 13.1 60.7 50 10 1020 2.02 3.92 3.94
3.05 2 -13.2 10.4 59.8 49.3 1060 765 3.97 3.42 5.41
2.15 3 -9.8 -4.5 59.7 49.2 659 -355 3.20 2.63 3.87
2.15 4 13.5 -1.8 57.6 47.5 -1050 -91 3.87 2.07 4.05
2.90 5 8.7 11.6 56.9 46.9 -764 1010 3.31 3.77 5.21
2.10 6 -4.1 8.6 58.2 48 281 618 2.45 3.09 3.62
1.60
2.20 7 0.0 -14.4 57.9 47.7 4 -1130 1.92 4.04 4.04
3.10 8 12.9 -11.9 55.6 45.8 -1020 -876 3.75 3.48 5.40
2.15 9 8.2 2.2 55.7 45.9 -612 226 2.98 2.26 3.41
2.15 10 -12.9 -0.2 56.7 46.7 953 -42 3.67 1.95 3.74
3.05 11 -10.5 -13.8 55.6 45.8 728 -1070 3.20 3.85 5.22
2.15 12 3.0 -10.1 55.4 45.7 -256 -681 2.31 3.11 3.60
1.85 2.45 1 -0.9 12.8 61.1 50.3 14 990 2.04 3.88 3.90
94
3.45 2 -12.8 9.6 60.3 49.7 1000 705 3.87 3.32 5.20
2.40 3 -9.2 -5.1 59.7 49.2 623 -351 3.14 2.62 3.80
2.45 4 12.8 -1.9 56.8 46.8 -993 -48 3.74 1.96 3.83
3.25 5 8.1 11.2 56.5 46.5 -716 955 3.21 3.66 5.00
2.35 6 -4.4 7.8 58.1 47.9 293 567 2.46 2.98 3.53
2.50 7 -0.1 -14.1 57.6 47.5 27 -1010 1.95 3.80 3.85
3.50 8 12.3 -10.9 54.9 45.3 -944 -743 3.58 3.21 4.98
2.35 9 7.3 2.4 54.4 44.9 -560 255 2.85 2.27 3.33
2.40 10 -12.9 -0.1 55.8 46 907 -9 3.55 1.86 3.57
3.40 11 -9.9 -13.1 54.6 45 656 -907 3.03 3.50 4.74
2.45 12 3.1 -9.1 54 44.5 -243 -546 2.24 2.81 3.27
3.00 1 -0.9 12.5 61 50.2 6 919 2.03 3.74 3.75
4.15 2 -10.4 6.9 56.1 46.2 661 392 3.09 2.58 3.83
2.90 3 -6.0 -6.0 51.3 42.3 227 -294 2.12 2.24 2.67
2.30
3.00 4* 11.0 -1.9 44.3 36.5 -724 0 2.82 1.46 2.82
4.00 5* 4.6 7.0 55 45.3 -222 362 2.22 2.49 2.91
2.85 6* -4.5 4.3 51.2 42.2 160 107 1.99 1.89 2.19
* Reloaded strands at point on cloverleaf
95

Force Moment

Force Ratio
[kip] [%] √ √ √ √ √ √ √
d X Y MubY MubX
1 0.5 6.7 52.5 48 -18 486 1.95 2.93 2.97

2 -5.6 4.8 51.1 46.7 482 323 2.88 2.55 3.55
3 -4.0 -2.6 50.4 46.1 349 -252 2.57 2.37 3.10
4 7.7 -1.2 49.8 45.5 -584 -81 3.03 1.98 3.20
5 5.7 6.2 48.9 44.7 -446 462 2.72 2.75 3.68
6 -1.4 4.4 49.3 45 132 304 2.08 2.43 2.71
0.25
7 0.1 -6.7 48.9 44.7 6.57 -606 1.80 3.05 3.06
8 6.6 -5.6 48 43.9 -519 -474 2.84 2.75 3.83
9 5.0 1.4 48.2 44 -371 68 2.53 1.90 2.67
10 -6.0 0.1 48.4 44.2 508 -48 2.83 1.87 2.93
11 -4.5 -6.3 47.8 43.6 404 -559 2.59 2.91 3.75
12 2.2 -4.9 47.6 43.5 -140 -398 2.03 2.57 2.86
1 0.5 10.4 53.6 49 -8 848 1.98 3.73 3.74
2 -8.3 7.1 52.3 47.7 791 549 3.57 3.06 4.71
3 -6.7 -3.6 52.4 47.8 568 -355 3.10 2.66 3.84
4 11.0 -1.3 51.9 47.4 -889 -79 3.76 2.06 3.92
0.45 5 7.9 9.1 51.2 46.8 -643 753 3.21 3.44 4.78
6 -1.7 6.8 51.7 47.2 200 469 2.30 2.86 3.28
7 -0.1 -9.8 51 46.5 28 -924 1.92 3.78 3.84
8 9.3 -7.7 50.2 45.8 -763 -674 3.42 3.23 4.83
9 6.9 1.9 50.7 46.3 -518 135 2.94 2.14 3.22
96
10 -9.1 0.0 50.3 46 800 -90 3.51 2.03 3.70
11 -7.0 -8.8 49.9 45.6 620 -828 3.12 3.56 4.85
12 2.8 -6.9 50.4 46 -177 -557 2.21 3.01 3.37
1 0.4 12.1 53.4 48.8 -3 1040 1.97 4.13 4.13
2 -10.3 9.1 52.7 48.1 975 717 3.96 3.43 5.46
3 -8.0 -3.6 52.7 48.1 694 -357 3.38 2.67 4.12
4 12.5 -0.9 52.6 48 -1020 -46.5 4.04 2.01 4.14
5 9.1 10.9 51.6 47.1 -747 949 3.44 3.87 5.42
6 -2.1 8.3 52 47.5 234 620 2.39 3.19 3.68
0.70
7 -0.1 -11.6 51.5 47.1 37 -1060 1.96 4.10 4.17
8 11.2 -9.1 50.9 46.5 -935 -782 3.81 3.49 5.44
9 8.1 2.0 51.2 46.8 -626 177 3.18 2.24 3.55
10 -10.5 -0.3 50.9 46.5 935 -76 3.81 2.02 3.97
11 -8.2 -10.6 50.5 46.1 710 -966 3.32 3.86 5.34
12 3.1 -8.3 50.6 46.2 -215 -666 2.29 3.23 3.68
1 0.4 13.2 54 49.3 6 1130 1.99 4.33 4.34
2 -11.7 10.2 53.2 48.6 1090 809 4.22 3.63 5.90
3 -8.7 -3.8 53.1 48.5 736 -355 3.48 2.68 4.22
4 13.3 -0.8 53 48.4 -1110 -35 4.24 2.00 4.32
5 10.1 12.2 52.2 47.7 -833 1070 3.64 4.13 5.87
6 -2.3 9.3 52.1 47.6 246 702 2.41 3.37 3.88
0.90
7 0.0 -12.5 52.5 48 8 -1120 1.93 4.25 4.27
8 12.3 -9.8 51.8 47.3 -1030 -830 4.03 3.62 5.77
9 9.1 2.5 51.7 47.2 -685 211 3.32 2.33 3.76
10 -11.1 -0.5 51.5 47 999 -85 3.97 2.06 4.15
11 -9.1 -11.8 51.2 46.8 759 -1070 3.46 4.10 5.69
12 3.4 -9.1 51.2 46.7 -246 -730 2.39 3.39 3.91
1.15 1 0.4 13.4 54.3 49.6 0 1150 1.99 4.39 4.39
97
2 -12.2 10.7 53.5 48.9 1150 841 4.36 3.71 6.11
3 -9.2 -3.8 53.4 48.8 784 -374 3.58 2.72 4.36
4 13.6 -0.9 53.6 48.9 -1140 -28 4.34 2.02 4.40
5 10.6 13.0 52.6 48.1 -866 1130 3.74 4.29 6.09
6 -2.6 9.6 52.3 47.8 273 717 2.48 3.41 3.98
7 0.0 -13.4 53.1 48.5 17 -1160 1.98 4.36 4.40
8 13.2 -10.5 52.3 47.7 -1080 -879 4.17 3.75 6.00
9 9.5 2.6 51.9 47.4 -715 233 3.39 2.39 3.88
10 -11.6 -0.6 51.8 47.3 1020 -90 4.01 2.07 4.20
11 -9.5 -12.6 51.6 47.1 775 -1120 3.50 4.22 5.84
12 3.5 -9.3 51.4 47 -256 -758 2.41 3.45 3.99
1 0.4 13.4 54.9 50.1 11 1140 2.02 4.38 4.40
2 -12.8 10.9 53.8 49.2 1170 836 4.41 3.72 6.16
3 -9.2 -4.5 53.8 49.1 765 -391 3.55 2.77 4.37
4 14.0 -0.8 54 49.3 -1140 -33 4.35 2.04 4.42
5 10.7 13.2 53.3 48.7 -862 1130 3.74 4.30 6.10
6 -2.8 9.7 52.7 48.1 282 712 2.52 3.41 4.00
1.40
7 0.1 -13.3 53.6 48.9 -1.88 -1130 1.96 4.32 4.32
8 13.5 -10.5 52.6 48 -1090 -853 4.19 3.69 5.97
9 9.5 3.3 52.1 47.6 -711 250 3.38 2.42 3.91
10 -12.1 -0.7 52 47.5 1030 -75 4.05 2.06 4.20
11 -9.9 -12.9 51.8 47.3 769 -1100 3.49 4.18 5.78
12 3.7 -9.3 51.6 47.2 -268 -711 2.45 3.37 3.93
1 0.3 13.5 55.2 50.4 9 1120 2.03 4.35 4.37
2 -12.2 10.4 53.9 49.2 1150 819 4.37 3.68 6.08
1.60 3 -8.8 -5.1 53.7 49 730 -373 3.48 2.74 4.26
4 14.0 -0.7 54.2 49.5 -1090 -22.3 4.25 2.02 4.29
5 10.6 12.7 53.5 48.9 -840 1110 3.71 4.27 6.03
98
6 -2.7 9.1 52.7 48.1 282 687 2.52 3.36 3.95
7 0.1 -13.6 53.6 49 -3.45 -1080 1.97 4.21 4.22
8 13.3 -10.1 52.7 48.1 -1070 -800 4.16 3.60 5.83
9 9.3 3.5 52 47.5 -691 278 3.34 2.48 3.92
10 -12.1 -0.8 52 47.5 1000 -51 3.99 2.01 4.09
11 -9.7 -12.8 51.8 47.3 751 -1070 3.45 4.12 5.68
12 4.1 -9.2 51.5 47.1 -269 -677 2.45 3.30 3.86
1 0.7 13.0 55.5 50.7 3 1070 2.04 4.26 4.27
2 -11.7 9.3 54.3 49.6 1110 776 4.30 3.61 5.92
3 -8.2 -5.4 53.7 49 702 -364 3.42 2.72 4.18
4 13.9 -1.3 54.2 49.5 -1070 -8 4.22 2.00 4.23
5 10.0 11.6 53.1 48.5 -746 967 3.50 3.96 5.52
6 -3.1 7.4 51.1 46.7 358 517 2.62 2.95 3.70
1.85
7 0.0 -13.1 52.8 48.2 26.7 -1030 1.99 4.08 4.13
8 11.8 -9.6 50.1 45.8 -821 -715 3.54 3.32 5.03
9 7.4 3.4 48.3 44.1 -440 198 2.69 2.18 3.10
10 -11.5 -0.7 50.8 46.4 937 -43 3.81 1.95 3.90
11 -8.2 -10.6 48.2 44 546 -703 2.90 3.22 4.36
12 4.1 -7.1 46 42.1 -233 -400 2.17 2.52 3.01
1 0.4 10.6 53.4 48.7 128 640 2.21 3.28 3.55
2.30 2 -6.0 3.7 36 32.9 215 4 1.76 1.32 1.77
3 -3.9 -5.2 41.4 37.8 11.2 -260 1.54 2.05 2.08
99

Force Moment

Force Ratio
[kip] [%] √ √ √ √ √ √ √
d X Y MubY MubX
1 0.1 9.8 57.3 48.2 -33 538 1.95 2.90 3.03

2 -7.9 6.8 56.2 47.3 492 382 2.78 2.57 3.57
3 -5.0 -2.8 56.3 47.4 320 -260 2.46 2.35 3.01
4 7.7 -0.2 55.5 46.7 -615 -101 2.99 2.02 3.24
5 5.3 8.8 54.8 46.1 -478 493 2.71 2.73 3.71
6 -2.2 6.7 55.1 46.4 96.3 351 2.00 2.48 2.71
0.25
7 0.2 -6.8 54.9 46.2 -45 -655 1.89 3.04 3.19
8 8.1 -4.9 54.2 45.6 -583 -518 2.88 2.76 3.94
9 5.2 4.1 54.6 45.9 -407 109 2.57 2.01 2.83
10 -7.4 1.7 54.7 46 499 -18 2.74 1.84 2.83
11 -4.8 -6.6 54.3 45.7 355 -556 2.46 2.84 3.58
12 2.7 -4.6 54.2 45.6 -172 -434 2.11 2.60 2.99
1 0.0 12.6 57.6 48.5 -12 943 1.92 3.67 3.77
2 -10.5 9.8 56.6 47.6 796 658 3.36 3.10 4.70
3 -7.8 -2.3 56.9 47.9 527 -305 2.87 2.45 3.51
4 11.2 -0.1 56.5 47.6 -930 -77 3.61 2.01 3.84
0.45 5 7.9 11.4 54.8 46.1 -679 817 3.08 3.34 4.72
6 -2.5 9.1 55.6 46.8 188 539 2.19 2.85 3.27
7 0.0 -10.2 55.6 46.8 -21 -980 1.87 3.68 3.79
8 9.8 -7.7 54.8 46.1 -801 -735 3.31 3.19 4.80
9 7.1 3.2 54.9 46.2 -536 145 2.82 2.08 3.16
100
10 -10.5 1.4 54.6 45.9 775 -61 3.26 1.91 3.44
11 -7.6 -8.9 54.6 46 586 -867 2.90 3.43 4.63
12 2.7 -6.9 54.7 46 -207 -616 2.19 2.96 3.42
1 -0.1 14.5 57.7 48.6 -10 1110 1.92 3.99 4.09
2 -12.3 11.4 57.6 48.5 994 789 3.77 3.38 5.36
3 -9.4 -2.3 58.1 48.9 682 -333 3.20 2.54 3.91
4 12.7 0.3 57 48 -1050 -54 3.86 1.98 4.04
5 9.3 13.0 55.9 47 -771 985 3.29 3.70 5.25
6 -2.7 10.6 56.5 47.5 225 668 2.29 3.12 3.62
0.70
7 -0.1 -11.8 57 48 -7 -1120 1.89 3.99 4.08
8 11.6 -9.1 55.9 47.1 -959 -863 3.65 3.47 5.38
9 8.4 3.7 55.6 46.8 -635 173 3.03 2.16 3.42
10 -12.1 1.3 55.7 46.9 926 -64 3.58 1.96 3.78
11 -9.2 -10.8 55.8 47 720 -1030 3.19 3.78 5.24
12 2.7 -8.2 55.7 46.9 -241 -709 2.29 3.17 3.70
1 -0.1 15.6 58.7 49.4 -9 1200 1.95 4.19 4.30
2 -13.6 12.1 58 48.8 1110 863 4.00 3.54 5.74
3 -10.3 -2.3 58.2 49 779 -364 3.38 2.60 4.15
4 13.6 0.4 57.6 48.4 -1120 -53 4.01 2.00 4.19
5 10.2 14.2 56.6 47.6 -844 1110 3.45 3.96 5.66
6 -3.2 11.6 56.9 47.9 244 750 2.34 3.29 3.82
0.90
7 0.0 -12.9 57.8 48.7 0.653 -1200 1.91 4.16 4.25
8 12.9 -9.9 56.5 47.5 -1070 -923 3.88 3.60 5.73
9 9.4 4.1 55.9 47 -708 210 3.18 2.24 3.64
10 -13.2 1.3 56.2 47.3 1030 -73 3.79 1.99 4.01
11 -10.2 -12.0 56.3 47.4 789 -1130 3.34 3.98 5.58
12 3.0 -9.0 55.9 47 -252 -780 2.32 3.31 3.86
1.15 1 -0.2 16.0 59.4 50 -6 1230 1.97 4.27 4.37
101
2 -14.4 12.8 58.8 49.5 1150 897 4.10 3.63 5.91
3 -10.9 -2.6 58.7 49.4 796 -372 3.43 2.64 4.22
4 14.4 0.5 58.2 49 -1150 -45 4.08 2.00 4.25
5 10.8 15.1 56.9 47.9 -863 1140 3.50 4.02 5.76
6 -3.4 12.0 57.1 48.1 270 756 2.39 3.31 3.89
7 0.0 -13.3 58.2 48.9 -17 -1210 1.95 4.20 4.32
8 13.6 -10.4 56.9 47.9 -1100 -928 3.95 3.62 5.81
9 9.7 4.2 56.1 47.2 -711 228 3.19 2.28 3.69
10 -13.6 1.3 56.6 47.7 1030 -59 3.80 1.98 4.00
11 -10.6 -12.4 56.2 47.3 774 -1130 3.31 3.98 5.55
12 3.4 -9.3 55.9 47.1 -281 -753 2.37 3.26 3.87
1 -0.2 16.2 59.4 50 -5 1160 1.97 4.14 4.24
2 -14.7 12.9 58.5 49.3 1130 847 4.06 3.52 5.77
3 -10.9 -2.7 58.5 49.3 743 -365 3.33 2.62 4.10
4 14.6 0.5 58.5 49.2 -1110 -51 4.02 2.03 4.20
5 10.8 15.5 57.1 48.1 -827 1110 3.44 3.97 5.64
6 -3.2 12.0 57 47.9 250 718 2.35 3.23 3.78
1.40
7 0.0 -13.4 58.3 49 -16.8 -1170 1.95 4.12 4.24
8 13.9 -10.4 57.3 48.2 -1110 -894 3.98 3.57 5.78
9 9.5 4.6 55.9 47.1 -688 243 3.14 2.30 3.67
10 -13.9 1.4 56.4 47.4 995 -67 3.73 1.99 3.94
11 -10.9 -12.6 56.5 47.6 761 -1110 3.29 3.95 5.50
12 3.2 -9.1 56.2 47.3 -276 -718 2.37 3.20 3.80
1 -0.2 16.2 59.6 50.2 -6 1120 1.98 4.07 4.17
2 -14.5 12.8 58.6 49.3 1100 808 4.00 3.45 5.64
1.60 3 -10.8 -2.8 58.7 49.4 722 -364 3.29 2.62 4.06
4 14.4 0.7 58.7 49.4 -1090 -49 3.99 2.03 4.16
5 10.9 15.4 57.6 48.5 -810 1070 3.42 3.91 5.55
102
6 -3.5 11.7 57 48 262 681 2.37 3.16 3.73
7 -0.2 -13.3 58.4 49.2 -10 -1130 1.94 4.05 4.16
8 13.5 -10.1 57.5 48.4 -1070 -857 3.91 3.51 5.64
9 9.5 4.8 56.4 47.5 -687 247 3.15 2.32 3.69
10 -14.0 1.3 56.7 47.7 976 -67 3.71 1.99 3.91
11 -10.9 -12.4 57.3 48.2 719 -1070 3.24 3.90 5.37
12 3.7 -8.8 56.3 47.4 -302 -686 2.42 3.15 3.79
1 -0.2 15.2 59.1 49.7 10 933 1.97 3.70 3.80
2 -13.6 11.9 56.2 47.3 1000 659 3.73 3.09 5.08
3 -9.8 -3.0 56.3 47.4 626 -375 3.03 2.56 3.82
4 14.2 0.3 55.4 46.7 -980 -102 3.67 2.02 3.94
5 10.2 14.3 53.8 45.3 -691 901 3.07 3.47 4.87
6* -3.5 10.4 53 44.6 258 513 2.23 2.71 3.26
1.85
7 0.0 -12.5 60.6 51 21 -1010 2.04 3.90 4.02
8 12.6 -8.9 58.5 49.2 -885 -740 3.59 3.32 5.09
9 8.5 5.1 57.3 48.2 -529 231 2.88 2.32 3.39
10 -13.3 1.4 57 48 880 -56 3.54 1.99 3.72
11 -9.2 -10.3 56.7 47.7 578 -813 2.96 3.40 4.58
12 3.7 -7.1 54.7 46 -282 -499 2.33 2.74 3.34
1 0.0 15.2 59.4 50 -16 893 1.99 3.64 3.75
2 -11.0 9.7 54.9 46.2 601 426 2.94 2.61 3.82
3* -6.7 -3.8 52.8 44.4 246 -346 2.20 2.39 2.91
4 12.0 0.5 53.80 45.30 -612 -71 2.93 1.91 3.12
2.30 5 6.4 9.0 48.9 41.1 -280 325 2.14 2.22 2.81
6* -4.5 6.3 44.6 37.5 239 100 1.92 1.66 2.15
7 0.0 -7.9 53.9 45.3 -25 -204 1.82 2.16 2.25
8 7.6 -3.9 48.4 40.7 -265 -54 2.09 1.70 2.24
9* 4.2 5.5 44.6 37.5 -64.2 201 1.59 1.85 2.01
103
10 -9.4 1.4 55.7 46.9 247 -7 2.30 1.85 2.36
11 -5.5 -5.9 53 44.6 75 -178 1.89 2.08 2.27
12 3.7 -3.1 46.9 39.4 -174 -27.1 1.87 1.60 1.96
* Reloaded strands at point before reaching next loading point zero x-displacement and zero y-displacement
104

Force Moment

Force Ratio
[kip] [%] √ √ √ √ √ √ √
d x y MubY MubX
1 0.3 8.3 59.6 48.5 -28 517 2.02 2.94 2.95

2 -7.5 5.3 58.3 47.4 500 329 2.86 2.54 3.44
3 -4.6 -3.6 58.0 47.2 329 -240 2.53 2.36 2.94
4 7.6 -1.2 57.4 46.7 -580 -69 2.98 2.02 3.07
5 5.4 7.7 56.9 46.3 -441 478 2.71 2.78 3.56
6 -2.7 5.2 56.9 46.3 124 314 2.11 2.47 2.67
0.25
7 0.0 -7.5 56.1 45.7 6 -616 1.86 3.01 2.98
8 7.5 -5.9 55.9 45.5 -534 -454 2.85 2.70 3.66
9 5.0 2.5 56.0 45.5 -379 95 2.56 2.02 2.70
10 -6.7 0.6 55.9 45.5 502 -48 2.79 1.93 2.84
11 -4.5 -7.6 55.4 45.1 386 -570 2.55 2.90 3.58
12 3.3 -5.3 55.5 45.2 -165 -405 2.14 2.59 2.87
1 0.4 11.1 60.7 49.4 -50 867 2.09 3.63 3.68
2 -9.8 8.4 59.7 48.6 769 569 3.42 3.04 4.43
3 -7.3 -3.4 59.6 48.5 527 -331 2.96 2.59 3.53
4 11.0 -1.1 59.1 48.1 -884 -69 3.61 2.08 3.69
0.45 5 8.1 9.6 57.6 46.8 -655 756 3.13 3.32 4.50
6 -2.2 7.7 58.1 47.3 167 476 2.23 2.81 3.09
7 0.0 -11.1 56.9 46.3 -6 -951 1.89 3.67 3.63
8 9.9 -8.7 56.6 46.0 -796 -715 3.36 3.21 4.65
9 7.2 2.1 57.1 46.5 -525 125 2.87 2.12 3.07
105
10 -9.7 0.3 56.7 46.2 747 -86 3.28 2.03 3.39
11 -7.2 -9.6 55.8 45.4 584 -861 2.94 3.46 4.50
12 2.9 -7.8 56.4 45.9 -208 -580 2.25 2.95 3.30
1 0.2 13.2 60.9 49.6 -31 1040 2.07 3.97 3.97
2 -11.6 10.2 60.4 49.1 957 737 3.79 3.38 5.11
3 -8.9 -3.6 60.0 48.8 661 -340 3.22 2.62 3.81
4 12.8 -0.9 59.4 48.4 -1040 -59 3.92 2.07 3.98
5 9.7 11.9 58.7 47.8 -793 957 3.43 3.74 5.16
6 -2.3 9.4 59.3 48.2 194 624 2.32 3.13 3.45
0.70
7 0.3 -12.9 58.1 47.3 -6 -1110 1.93 4.00 3.96
8 12.0 -10.2 57.7 47.0 -964 -840 3.72 3.48 5.23
9 8.8 2.3 57.8 47.1 -638 151 3.11 2.19 3.35
10 -11.4 0.2 57.6 46.9 907 -83 3.61 2.06 3.71
11 -8.8 -11.7 57.1 46.5 708 -1020 3.21 3.80 5.07
12 2.9 -9.3 57.2 46.6 -238 -715 2.33 3.23 3.63
1 0.2 14.1 61.7 50.2 -41 1110 2.11 4.12 4.15
2 -13.3 11.5 60.9 49.6 1090 817 4.06 3.55 5.53
3 -9.9 -3.5 60.2 49.0 755 -346 3.41 2.64 4.01
4 14.4 -0.8 59.9 48.7 -1160 -40 4.16 2.05 4.18
5 10.9 13.2 59.4 48.4 -883 1080 3.62 3.99 5.58
6 -2.7 10.5 59.5 48.4 218 717 2.37 3.31 3.67
0.90
7 0.4 -13.5 58.8 47.9 -20 -1200 1.98 4.20 4.18
8 13.3 -11.1 58.3 47.5 -1100 -925 3.99 3.66 5.66
9 9.9 2.9 58.2 47.3 -742 188 3.32 2.27 3.62
10 -12.6 0.3 58.2 47.4 997 -82 3.80 2.07 3.90
11 -9.9 -13.0 57.8 47.0 773 -1130 3.36 4.03 5.42
12 3.2 -10.1 57.5 46.8 -273 -792 2.41 3.39 3.85
1.15 1 0.2 15.1 62.3 50.7 -27 1170 2.10 4.26 4.25
106
2 -14.2 12.3 61.6 50.1 1160 866 4.21 3.66 5.77
3 -10.6 -3.6 60.6 49.3 789 -353 3.48 2.66 4.09
4 15.1 -0.6 60.4 49.2 -1220 -48 4.29 2.08 4.32
5 11.7 14.2 60.3 49.1 -935 1150 3.75 4.15 5.84
6 -2.8 11.3 60.3 49.0 233 773 2.43 3.44 3.83
7 0.5 -14.6 59.9 48.8 -30 -1250 2.03 4.33 4.33
8 14.4 -11.7 59.4 48.4 -1180 -961 4.18 3.77 5.91
9 10.7 3.2 58.9 47.9 -800 213 3.45 2.34 3.80
10 -13.6 0.3 59.1 48.1 1040 -90 3.91 2.12 4.02
11 -10.7 -14.0 59.1 48.1 810 -1220 3.47 4.24 5.70
12 3.4 -10.9 58.5 47.6 -290 -832 2.47 3.49 3.99
1 0.2 15.6 62.9 51.2 -28 1210 2.13 4.35 4.35
2 -15.1 13.0 62.2 50.6 1220 911 4.35 3.77 5.98
3 -11.0 -3.6 61.3 49.9 820 -360 3.56 2.70 4.19
4 15.5 -0.6 61.1 49.8 -1230 -36 4.33 2.08 4.34
5 12.2 15.0 61.1 49.7 -962 1210 3.82 4.29 6.02
6 -3.0 11.9 60.7 49.4 256 822 2.48 3.55 3.98
1.40
7 0.4 -15.1 60.6 49.3 -33 -1280 2.06 4.41 4.41
8 15.1 -12.1 59.6 48.5 -1220 -987 4.26 3.82 6.04
9 11.0 3.1 58.9 47.9 -813 226 3.47 2.37 3.85
10 -13.9 0.3 59.3 48.3 1070 -89 3.97 2.12 4.08
11 -11.1 -14.4 59.3 48.3 827 -1250 3.51 4.31 5.79
12 4.0 -11.1 58.5 47.6 -301 -847 2.50 3.52 4.04
1 0.1 16.0 63.5 51.7 -24 1220 2.14 4.39 4.38
2 -15.2 13.2 62.8 51.1 1220 912 4.37 3.79 6.01
1.60 3 -10.9 -4.2 61.3 49.9 794 -397 3.52 2.77 4.21
4 15.8 -0.6 61.3 49.9 -1230 -27 4.34 2.07 4.33
5 12.2 15.1 61.6 50.1 -963 1220 3.84 4.33 6.06
107
6 -3.3 11.8 61.1 49.7 271 805 2.52 3.53 3.99
7 0.5 -15.2 60.9 49.6 -41 -1250 2.09 4.36 4.38
8 15.1 -12.0 60.1 48.9 -1210 -975 4.26 3.82 6.02
9 10.9 3.6 59.0 48.0 -796 249 3.44 2.41 3.86
10 -14.0 0.4 59.9 48.7 1040 -78 3.93 2.12 4.03
11 -11.1 -14.3 59.7 48.5 795 -1220 3.46 4.26 5.69
12 4.0 -10.5 58.7 47.8 -331 -810 2.56 3.46 4.03
1 0.1 15.5 62.3 50.7 -35 1110 2.12 4.14 4.16
2 -14.4 12.1 59.3 48.2 1130 805 4.08 3.47 5.53
3 -10.1 -4.7 57.8 47.0 693 -438 3.21 2.73 3.98
4 15.4 -0.9 57.8 47.0 -1160 -68 4.09 2.03 4.16
5 11.7 14.2 57.4 46.7 -883 1090 3.55 3.94 5.53
6 -3.3 10.5 56.5 46.0 227 676 2.29 3.13 3.52
1.85
7 0.4 -14.8 55.5 45.1 -58 -1190 1.94 4.07 4.13
8 14.4 -11.1 54.5 44.3 -1140 -877 3.94 3.45 5.52
9 9.9 3.7 53.5 43.6 -709 248 3.10 2.23 3.52
10 -13.5 0.2 53.5 43.5 965 -78 3.58 1.91 3.68
11 -10.0 -13.1 52.9 43.1 677 -1080 3.02 3.78 4.99
12 4.3 -9.3 52.0 42.3 -360 -672 2.39 2.98 3.61
1 0.4 16.1 63.3 51.5 -68 1140 2.21 4.23 4.30
2 -12.7 10.5 61.3 49.9 963 714 3.83 3.36 5.11
3 -8.0 -5.8 59.0 48.0 494 -415 2.87 2.73 3.61
4 15.6 -0.8 60.0 48.8 -1120 -41 4.09 2.06 4.11
2.30 5 9.4 11.3 57.2 46.5 -651 714 3.11 3.23 4.40
6 -4.2 7.5 54.9 44.7 249 364 2.28 2.50 2.93
7 0.4 -13.6 55.2 45.0 -52 -929 1.92 3.57 3.62
8 10.1 -7.8 50.7 41.2 -508 -466 2.63 2.55 3.46
9 6.1 4.2 47.0 38.2 -227 193 1.98 1.91 2.31
108
10* -10.1 0.2 55.4 45.1 315 -24 2.42 1.87 2.43
11 -5.8 -8.1 51.9 42.2 76 -330 1.85 2.33 2.44
12 4.3 -5.0 45.7 37.2 -238 -93 1.95 1.68 2.10
1 0.4 10.0 60.7 49.4 -54 297 2.10 2.56 2.63
2 -8.3 5.6 58.2 47.4 276 80 2.44 2.07 2.55
3 -4.2 -5.3 51.0 41.5 26 -213 1.73 2.08 2.10
4* 9.9 -1.0 60.1 48.9 -262 -32 2.47 2.04 2.50
5 5.2 7.3 58.7 47.7 -131 220 2.18 2.35 2.56
6 -4.4 3.9 52.6 42.8 159 20 2.03 1.77 2.04
2.75
7† -0.1 -9.0 60.0 48.8 -1 -266 1.98 2.48 2.45
8 7.7 -4.4 57.1 46.5 -226 -84 2.31 2.04 2.43
9 3.5 4.8 51.2 41.6 -42 121 1.77 1.92 1.97
10 -9.2 0.5 50.5 41.1 275 -14 2.18 1.69 2.18
11 -4.6 -6.7 49.6 40.4 71 -213 1.77 2.04 2.14
12 4.9 -3.4 43.6 35.5 -176 -68 1.77 1.57 1.87
* Stopped at zero x-displacement and zero y-displacement while loading to subsequent point on loading path, reloaded strands before continuing drift cycle
† Stopped at zero x-displacement and zero y-displacement while loading to subsequent point on loading path unloaded the slab completely, lowered slab
perimeter, then reloaded slab before continuing drift cycle
109
Table 3-10: Peak Shear Stresses on Critical Section
Normalized Maximum Normalized Maximum

Normalized Maximum
Shear Stress in X- Shear Stress in Y-
Shear Stress at Corner
Direction Direction
Specimen
Drift Drift Drift
vx vy vxy
Level Point Level Point Level Point
[psi] [psi] [psi]
[%] [%] [%]
SB3 (Cheng
3.97 0.9 4 4.29 0.9 1 5.68 0.9 2
2009)
B1 4.15 1.15 2 4.31 1.15 7 5.80 1.15 9
B2 4.41 1.40 2 4.39 1.15 1 6.16 1.40 2
B3 4.10 1.15 2 4.27 1.15 1 5.91 1.15 2
B4 4.37 1.60 2 4.39 1.40 1 6.06 1.60 5
Table 3-11: Design and Calculated Shear Capacity of Slabs and Peak Shear Stresses
Design Nominal Calculated Nominal

Peak Shear Stresses†
Shear Capacity* Shear Capacity†
[psi]
Specimen [psi] [psi]
vc vs^ vc vs^ vx vy vxy
B1 0 5.2 2 4.8 4.15 4.31 5.80
B2 0 3.6 2 3.6 4.41 4.39 6.16
B3 0 5.2 2 4.9 4.10 4.27 5.91
B4 0 8.0° 2 7.9° 4.37 4.41 6.06
* Normalized by the square root of the specified concrete strength
† Normalized by the square root of the concrete compressive strength measured one day
prior to specimen testing
^ The specified yield stress of 55 ksi is assumed for the studs
° The maximum design shear stress capacity of 8√ (psi) permitted by the ACI Building
Code (ACI Committee 318 2008) governs
110
Table 4-1: Drift Capacity of Slab-Column Connections without Shear Reinforcement
Vg/Vc Ultimate drift

h 1
Vg/Vc Drift at peak Failure
Researcher Label [%] Setup Peak [%]
[in.] target load [%] mode2
Load (at punching)
S1 6 1.20 0.34 0.34 4.0 4.0 P
S2 6 0.84 0.45 0.45 1.4 1.4 P
Hawkins et al. (1974) B, D
S3 6 0.55 0.42 0.43 1.4 1.4 P
S4 6 1.20 0.37 0.42 2.1 2.1 P
S6 6 1.81 0.89 0.88 1.2 1.2 P
Symonds et al. B, D
S7 6 0.84 0.83 0.80 0.5 0.5 P
SM 0.5 6 0.50 0.31 NA 6.5 4.3 P
Ghali et al. (1976) SM 10. 6 1.00 A, C 0.33 NA 2.7 2.7 F-P
SM 1.5 6 1.50 0.30 NA 2.0 2.0 F-P
1 3.5 0.53* 0.25 0.25 4.4 3.7 P
Islam and Park (1976) 2 3.5 0.53* B, D 0.23 0.23 5.0 4.1 P
3C 3.5 0.53* 0.23 0.23 5.2 2.0 P
Morrison and Sozen S4 3 0.98 0.078 NA 4.5 3.5 F-P
B, C
(1981) S5 3 0.98 0.166 NA 4.8 3.3 F-P
Zee and Moehle (1984) INT 2.4 0.80 B, C 0.29 0.29 3.5 3.5 P
AP1 4.8 0.86 0.37 0.37 1.6 1.6 F-P
AP2** 4.8 0.86 0.36 0.36 1.5 1.5 F-P
Pan and Moehle (1989) A, B, C
AP3 4.8 0.86 0.18 0.18 4.8 3.7 F-P
AP4** 4.8 0.86 0.19 0.19 3.5 3.5 F-P
3SE 4.5 0.73 0.19 0.15 4.0 3.5 F-P
Robertson and Durrani 5SO 4.5 0.73 0.21 0.17 3.5 3.5 F-P
B, C
(1990) 6LL 4.5 0.73 0.54 0.54 1.0 1.0 P
7L 4.5 0.73 0.37 0.37 1.5 1.5 P
CD1 5 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.9 0.9 P
Dilger and Cao (1991) A, C
CD2 5 0.49 0.65 0.65 1.2 1.2 P
111
CD8 5 0.49 0.52 0.52 1.4 1.4 P
Wey and Durrani
SC0 4.5 1.0 B, C 0.18 .23 3.5 3.5 P
(1992)
1 3.15 1.0 0.00 NA 5.5 5.5 F-P
2 3.15 1.0 0.00 NA 5.0 3.9 F-P
Farhey et al. (1993) A, C
3 3.15 1.0 0.26 NA 3.7 3.2 P
4 3.15 0.68 0.30 NA 2.5 2.5 P
DNY_2 4.5 0.42 0.37 0.37 2.0 2.0 P
Durrani et al. (1995) B, C
DNY_4 4.5 0.42 0.27 0.27 4.7 2.6 P
Robertson et al. (2002) C1 4.5 0.42 B, C 0.25 0.17 3.5 3.5 P
ND1C 4.5 0.73 0.25 0.23 8.0 3.0 F-P
ND4LL 4.5 0.31 0.37 0.28 4.0 3.0 F-P
Robertson and Johnson
ND5XL 4.5 1.20 B, C 0.48 0.47 2.0 1.5 P
(2006)
ND6HR 4.5 0.84 0.30 0.29 5.0 3.0 P
ND7LR 4.5 0.55 0.36 0.26 5.0 3.0 F-P
1) A – Jacked column at base; B – Hung weights from slab; C – Applied lateral force at column tip; D – Applied force couple at slab edges
2) F – Flexural yielding preceded punching; P – Primary failure mode was punching shear
*Grade 40 steel used, value multiplied by 2/3
**Biaxially loaded
112
Table 4-2: Drift Capacity of Slab-Column Connections with Headed Shear Stud Reinforcement
h Vg/Vc Vg/Vc Ultimate Drift at Peak

Failure
Researcher Label s/d Setup* Drift [%] Lateral Load
[in.] [%] Target Peak Load Mode**
(Punching) [%]
CD3 5 1.1 0.79 0.91 NA 3.5 NA F-P
Dilger and Cao CD4 5 1.1 0.79 0.62 NA 4.8 NA F-P
A, C
(1991) CD6 5 1.1 0.39 0.64 NA 5.4 NA F-P
CD7 5 1.1 0.79 0.51 NA 5.6 NA F-P
SJB-1 5.9 1.1 0.57 0.50 0.48 5.5 2.5 P
SJB-2 5.9 1.1 0.57 0.50 0.47 5.7 3.8 P
SJB-3 5.9 1.1 0.57 0.50 0.48 5.0 3.2 P
Dilger and Brown P
SJB-4 5.9 1.1 0.57 A, C 0.50 0.43 6.4 5.5
(1994)
SJB-5 5.9 1.5 0.57 0.50 0.47 7.6 3.3 P
SJB-8 5.9 1.1 0.57 0.50 0.46 5.7 4.3 P
SJB-9 5.9 1.5 0.57 0.50 0.49 7.1 4.3 P
Megally (1998) MG-10 10 1.6 0.75 A, C 0.59 NA 5.2 NA NA
MG-3 10 1.6 0.79 0.58 NA 5.4 3.2 NA
Megally and Ghali MG-4 10 1.6 0.75 0.56 NA 4.6 2.0 F-P
A, C
(2000) MG-5 10 1.6 0.75 0.86 NA 6.5 3.0 F-P
MG-6 10 1.6 0.44 0.31 NA 6.0 3.5 F-P
Robertson et al. N-A
4HS 4.5 0.68 0.68 B, C 0.24 0.15 8.0 5.0
(2002)
18c 7.1 1.2 0.50 0.67 0.67 4.0 2.5 P
Broms (2007b) A, C
18d 7.1 0.67 0.50 0.67 0.67 4.0 2.0 P
Cheng et al. (2009) SB3** 6 0.60 0.75 O 0.50 0.43 1.63 1.63 F-P
1) A – Jacked column at base; B – Hung weights from slab; C – Applied lateral force at column tip; D – Applied force couple at slab edges; O – Pulled down on
slab with prestressing strands
2) F – Flexural yielding preceded punching; P – Primary failure mode was punching shear
**Biaxially loaded
113
FIGURES
1.
Figure 1-1: Stud Rail Assembly
Figure 1-2: Orthogonal Stud Rail Arrangement
114
Slab
Diagonal
Crack
dz Column
z typically between d and 2d
Figure 1-3: Shear Stud Reinforcement Shear Transfer Mechanism
Figure 1-4: Shear Reinforcement Provided in a Previously Reported Shear Stud Reinforced Specimen
(Cheng et al. 2009)
115
Figure 1-5: Lateral Load Versus Drift Response of Specimen with Shear Stud Reinforcement Reported in
Cheng et al. (2010), with Circle Indicating Development of a Punching Shear Failure
Figure 1-6: Punching Shear Crack between First and Second Row of Shear Stud from Specimen SB3
(Cheng et al. 2010)
116
2.
Figure 2-1: Elevation View of Setup
117
Figure 2-2: 3D Model of Test Configuration
118
Figure 2-3: Detail of Ancillary Actuator-to-Slab Connection
Figure 2-4: Steel Tube Layout on Slab Perimeter
119
42"
16"
All Reinforcing Bars: Grade 60

Column Longitudinal Bars: No. 6
Column Hoops: No. 3 @ 3" o.c.
Effective Flexural Slab Depth: 4.75"
60"
6"
204"
A A
237"
16"
4" 123"
16"
1.5"
@ 3.75" o.c.
Section A-A
32"
63"
Figure 2-5: Specimen Elevation and Column Reinforcement Details
120
All Reinforcement: No. 4, Grade 60
Figure 2-6: Bottom Slab Reinforcement Layout
121
All Reinforcement: No. 4, Grade 60
Figure 2-7: Top Slab Reinforcement Layout
122
Column
Top reinforcement or PT
within failure “cone”
Slab
Spalled cover
Bottom reinforcement
through column
Figure 2-8: Bottom Mat Reinforcement Serving as Integrity Steel (courtesy of Jack P. Moehle)
123
Slab 1-1 2" (0.3d)
Column
A A
9.7" 20-1 2"

(2.0d) (4.3d)
9 studs @ 2-3 8" (0.5d)
1.19"
0.21"
4.25"
1.5" 0.375" 3
4" chairs 1.5"
7-3 8" (1.6d) Section A-A
Rail Cross-Section 1-1 4" x 1 4"

Specified Minimum Yield Stress: 55 ksi
Figure 2-9: Shear Reinforcement Details for Specimen B1
124
2" (0.4d)
Slab
Column
A A
26-1 2"
13.6" (5.6d)
(2.9d)
8 studs @ 3-1 2" (0.75d)
1.19"
0.21"
4.25"
0.375" 3
2" 4" chairs 2"
Section A-A
7-3 8" (1.6d)
Rail Cross-Section 1-1 4" x 1 4"

Specified Minimum Yield Stress: 55 ksi
125
7.6"
(1.6d)
Slab
2" (0.4d)
Column
25-3 4" (5.4d)
A A
B
11 studs @ 2-3 8" (0.5d)
9.4" 45° 1.19" 0.21"
(2.0d) 4.25"
2" 0.375" 3/4" chairs 2"
Section A-A
B
7-18" (1.5d) 1.19"
15 studs @ 2-3 8" (0.5d)
0.21"
4.25"
Rail Cross-Section 1" x 16 " 3 2" 0.375" 3/4" chairs 2"
Specified Minimum Yield Stress: 55 ksi Section B-B
126
15" (3.2d)
Slab 1-1 4" (0.3d)

Column
25" (5.3d)
A A
45° 6.5" 11 studs @ 2-3 8" (0.5d)

1.19" 0.21"
(1.4d) 4.25"
1.25" 0.375" 3/4" chairs 1.25"
Section A-A
B
6" 11 studs @ 3-3 8" (0.7d)
1.19"
(1.3d) 0.21"
4.25"
Rail Cross-Section 1" x 316 " 2.25" 0.375" 3/4" chairs 2.25"
Specified Minimum Yield Stress: 55 ksi Section B-B
127
No. 5 @ 6" 9.5" No. 5 @ 6"
N
32"
No. 5 @ 6" 9.5" No. 5 @ 6"

C
63"
Section A-A
No. 5 @ 6" No. 5 @ 6" 9.5" No. 5 @ 6"
B B
8.5" 63" 32"
No. 4
Hoops
No. 5 @ 6" @ 6"
63"
Section B-B
No. 5 @ 6" 8.5" No. 5 @ 6"

A A
C
63" 9"
32"
9"
63"
Section C-C
Figure 2-13: Base Block Dimensions and Reinforcement Details
128
42"
N
6"
14" 42"
6"
B B
A A
9" o.c.
1.75" 1.75"
7.75" 7.75"
14.25" 16" 14.25"
Section A-A Section B-B
All Reinforcing Bars: No. 4, Grade 60
Figure 2-14: Top Block Dimensions and Reinforcement Details
129
N
6"
14"
6"
B
Y
X A
9
1.75"
7.75"
14.25" 16"
Section A-A
Figure 2-15: Strain Gauge Locations on Bottom Slab Reinforcing Bars All Reinforcing B
130
N
6"
14"
6"
B
Y
X A
1.75"
7.75"
14.25" 16
Section A-A
All Reinforcing
Figure 2-16: Strain Gauge Locations on Top Slab Reinforcing Bars
131
N
Figure 2-17: Strain Gauge Location Key
1.75"
7.75"
14.25"
Section A
Figure 2-18: Location of Strain Gauges on Longitudinal Column Steel
132
42"
N
6"
14" 42
6"
B
A
9" o.c.
1.75" 1.75"
7.75" 7.75"
14.25" 16" 14.25"
Section A-A
All Reinforcing Bars: No. 4, Grade 60

Figure 2-19: Specimen B1 Strain Gauge Layout for Shear Studs
133
42"
N
6"
14"
6"
B
A
9" o.c.
1.75" 1.75"
7.75" 7.75"
14.25" 16" 14.25"
Section A-A
All Reinforcing Bars: No. 4, G

134
42"
N
6"
14"
6"
B
A
9" o.c.
1.75" 1.75"
7.75" 7.75"
14.25" 16" 14.25"
Section A-A
All Reinforcing Bars: No. 4, Grad

135
42"
N
6"
ROONW2 ROONW4
A
ROINW2 ROINW4
ROONE2
ROINW1 ROINW3
ROONW3
RRNW4 A
ROINE2
RRNE4
RRNW3 RRNE3 14"
Slab RRNW2 RRNE2
RRNW1 ROOEN3
RRNE1
ROOWN2 ROOEN2 ROOEN4
ROIWN2 ROIEN1 ROIEN3
6"
ROIEN2 ROIEN4 B
ROIWS3 ROIWS1
Column ROIES2
ROIWS4 ROIWS2
A
ROISE3 ROISE1
ROOWS4 ROOWS2 ROOES2
9" o.c.
ROOSE4 ROOSE2
RRSW1
ROISE4 ROISE2
ROOWS3 RRSE1
ROISW2
RRSW2
ROOSW2
RRSE2
RRSW3 ROOSE3 RRSE3
RRSW4 RRSE4 1.75" 1.75"
7.75" 7.75"
14.25" 16" 14.25"
Section A-A
All Reinforcing Bars: No. 4, G

136
LVDTs for Measuring
Slab Deformations
A Column A
5.5 in.
9.5 in.
(2.0d) Slab 4.75 in. (1.0d)
3.0 in. LVDTs for Measuring

Vertical Slab Settlement
B B
a) Elevation View
Figure 2-23: LVDT Locations in Slab Region
137
42"
N
6"
14"
6"
B
A
9" o.c.
1.75"
7.75" 7.7
14.25" 16" 14.25"
42"
N Section A-A
b) Section A-A
6" Locations in Slab Region
Figure 3-24: LVDT All Reinforcing Bars: No
14" 42"
138
6"
42
N
6"
14"
6"
B
A
9" o
1.75"
7.75"
14.25" 16"
42"
N c) Section B-B
Section A-A
Figure 3-24: LVDT Locations in Slab Region All Reinforcing Bars

6"
14" 42"
139
6"
Figure 2-24: Column/Base LVDT Locations
42"
N
6"
14"
6"
B
A
9" o.c.
1.75"
7.75"
14.25" 16" 14.25
Section A-A
All Reinforcing Bars: N
Figure 2-25: Location of LVDTs Measuring Base Block Slippage (As Viewed From Above)
140
42"
N
6"
14"
6"
B
A
9" o.c.
1.75"
7.75" 7
14.25" 16" 14.25"
Section A-A
String Potentiometers Were Connected To Slab Edge 12” From Nearest Corner All Reinforcing Bars: N
Figure 2-26: String Potentiometer Locations
141
N
6"
14"
Y 6"
B
X
A
1.75"
7.75"
14.25"
Section A-A
Figure 2-27: External Forces Applied to Slab

A
142
a) Cloverleaf Loading Pattern
6
N/S or E/W Drift
5
Target Drift (percent)
Maximum Resultant Drift

4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Cycle Number
b) Target Drift Level Versus Cycle Number
Figure 2-28: Intended Loading Sequence
143
3.
Figure 3-1: Specimen B1 – Initiation of Punching Shear Damage at 1.85% Drift, Point 8
Figure 3-2: Specimen B1 – Connection Damage at 2.30% Drift, Point 4-5
144
Figure 3-3: Specimen B1 – Diagonal, Radial Crack at Northeast Column Corner
Figure 3-4: Specimen B2 – Bottom Surface of Slab-Column Connection Prior to Testing
145
146
147
Figure 3-10: Specimen B4 – Connection Damage at 2.30% Drift, Point 8
148
Inclined Crack
Slab Piece
to the South
Slab Piece to Slab Piece to

the South the South
Figure 3-11: Failure Surface of Connection B1
149
Figure 3-12: Specimen B1 – Bottom View of North-East Corner of Slab-Column Connection After Test
Figure 3-13: Specimen B1 – Void in Connection Region on East and South Faces of Connection After Test
150
North
Figure 3-14: Specimen B1 – Sound Concrete on North Face of Connection After Test
Figure 3-15: Schematic of Specimen B2Failure Surface
151
Figure 3-16: Specimen B2 – Connection Region where Severely Degraded Concrete was Removed by
Hand After Test
Studs fractured from

base rail at weld
Rails dowel
between first
and second
row of studs
Figure 3-17: Specimen B2 – Stud Weld Fracture and Dowel Action in Rails
152
Figure 3-18: Specimen B3 – Void in Connection Region after Loose Concrete was Removed After Test
Figure 3-19: Specimen B3 – Bending of Base Rail between First and Second Shear Stud
153
Figure 3-20: Specimen B4 – Gravel-Like Concrete within Connection Region
Figure 3-21: Specimen B4 – Void in Connection Region after Loose Concrete was Removed After Test
154
Figure 3-22: Specimen B4 – Bending of Base Rail on South-East Face of Column After Test
155
4
2
Y-Drift (percent)
-1
-2
Full Specimen
-3
First Story
Second Half-Story
-4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Sample Number x 10
4
Figure 3-23: Y-Axis Drift for the First Story, Second Half-Story, and Full Specimen of Specimen B2
156
20
15
X-Axis Force (kip) 10
0
1
-5
-10
2
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
X-Axis Drift Over 1.5 Stories (percent)
Figure 3-24: Specimen B1 – Load versus Drift Response (X-Direction)

20
15
1
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
5
2
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Y-Axis Drift Over 1.5 Stories (percent)
Figure 3-25: Specimen B1 – Load versus Drift Response (Y-Direction)
157
25
20
Resultant Force (kip)
15
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Resultant Drift Over 1.5 Stories (percent)
Figure 3-26: Specimen B1 – Resultant Load versus Drift Response
-1500
-1000
Slab Moment About Y-Axis (kip-in)
2
-500
0
1
500
1000
Early Cycles
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.3% Drift Cycle
1500
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Slab Moment about X-Axis (kip-in)
Figure 3-27: Specimen B1 – Relationship Between Moments Transferred into the Column About the X-
and Y-Axes
158
55 9
Gravity Shear Ratio
Target Gravity Shear Ratio Point 2
50 7
45 5
Gravity Shear Ratio [%]
Lateral Drift [%]

40 3
Reloaded Slab
At Points 4, 5, 6
35 1
30 -1
X-Drift
Y-Drift
25 -3
0.250.45 0.7 0.9 1.15 1.4 1.6 1.85 2.3
Drift Cycle [%]
Figure 3-28: Specimen B1 – Gravity Shear History
159
20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
Fracture of Studs
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

20
15
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
-5
-10
-15
Softening prior to stud fracture
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
160
25
20

15
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

-1500
-1000 10
Slab Moment About Y-Axis (kip-in.)
11
-500
500
1000
Early Cycles
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.3% Drift Cycle
1500
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Slab Moment About X-Axis (kip-in.)
and Y-Axes
161
55 9
Gravity Shear Ratio
Point 1-2, Studs Fractured
Target Gravity Shear Ratio
50 7
45 5
Lateral Drift [%]

Point 7
40 3
Reloading Slab
35 1
30 -1
X-Drift
Y-Drift
25 -3
0.250.45 0.7 0.9 1.15 1.4 1.6 1.85 2.3
Drift Cycle [%]
162
20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

20
15
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
163
25
20

15
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

-1500
-1000
2
-500
0
1
500
1000 Early Cycles

1.85% Drift Cycle
2.3% Drift Cycle
1500
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
and Y-Axes
164
55 9
Gravity Shear Ratio
Target Gravity Shear Ratio
Point 2
50 7
45 5
Lateral Drift [%]

Reloaded Slab
40 Before Point 7 of 1.85% Drift Cycle;
3
Points 1, 4, 7, 9 of 2.30% Drift Cycle
35 1
30 -1
X-Drift
Y-Drift
25 -3
0.250.45 0.7 0.9 1.15 1.4 1.6 1.85 2.3 0.25
Cycle
165
20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

20
15
5
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
5
6
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
166
25
20

15
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-1500 Early Cycles

2.3% Drift Cycle
2.75% Drift Cycle
-1000 2
-500 3
0
1
9
500
5
1000
4
1500
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
and Y-Axes
167
55 9
Gravity Shear Ratio
Unloaded Slab, lowered slab corners,
perimeter, then
then reloaded
reloaded slab
slab
Target Gravity Shear Ratio Point 5
50 7
45 5
Lateral Drift [%]

40 3
Reloaded Slab
35 1
30 -1
X-Drift
Y-Drift
25 -3
0.250.450.7 0.9 1.15 1.4 1.6 1.85 2.3 2.75
Drift Cycle [%]
168
Cheng et. al.
B1
25 25
B2
Resultant Force at Point 2 [kip]

B3
20 20 B4
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Resultant Drift at Point 2 [%] Resultant Drift at Point 5 [%]
25 25

20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 3-44: Resultant Lateral Load versus Resultant Drift Envelopes at Corner Points on Cloverleaf Cycle (Drift was Not Corrected For Base Slip)
169
Cheng et. al.
25 25 B1

B2
B3
20 20
B4
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
25 25

20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 3-45: Resultant Lateral Load versus Resultant Drift Envelopes in X-Directions on Cloverleaf Cycle (Drift was Not Corrected For Base Slip)
170
Cheng et. al.
25 25 B1

B2
B3
20 20
B4
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
25 25

20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 3-46: Resultant Lateral Load versus Resultant Drift Envelopes in Y-Directions on Cloverleaf Cycle (Drift was Not Corrected For Base Slip)
171
Severe Concrete
Degradation
Figure 3-47: Schematic of Slab Drop Due to Diagonal Punching Shear Crack (left) and Sliding Shear
(right), with Reinforcement Omitted for Clarity
172
1.2 4
X-Drift
Y-Drift
0.6 0
Slab Drop (in.)
Drift (percent)
0 -4
1/4 in.
-0.6 -8
North-West
North-East
South-West
South-East
-1.2 -12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Sample Number x 10
4
Figure 3-48: Specimen B2 – Vertical Drop of Slab Bottom Relative to the Column at Each Column Corner
173
1.2 4
X-Drift
Y-Drift
0.6 0
Slab Drop (in.)
Drift (percent)
0 -4
1/4 in.
-0.6 -8
North-West
North-East
South-West
South-East
-1.2 -12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Sample Number x 10
4
174
1.2 4
X-Drift
Y-Drift
0.6 0
Slab Drop (in.)
Drift (percent)
0 -4
Point 9 of 2.30% Drift Cycle
1/4 in.
-0.6 -8
North-West
North-East
South-West
South-East
-1.2 -12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Sample Number x 10
4
175
Figure 3-51: 2008 ACI Code Assumed Distribution of Shear Stresses in Square Interior Column
176
1500
1000

500
-500
-1000
-1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Slab Rotation d from the North Column Face (rad)
a) Slab Rotation d from Column Face

1500
1000
500
-500
-1000
-1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Slab Rotation 2d from the North Column Face (rad)
b) Slab Rotation 2d from Column Face

Figure 3-52: Moment Transferred to Column Versus Slab Rotation at the North Column Face of Specimen
B2
177
South Face East Face
5000 5000 0.25% Drift Cycle
0.45% Drift Cycle
Maximum Strain (x106)

4000 4000 0.70% Drift Cycle
0.90% Drift Cycle
1.15% Drift Cycle
3000 3000
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2000 2000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
1000 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Distance from Column Face (in.) Distance from Column Face (in.)
Figure 3-53: Specimen B1 – Profile of Strains in Studs on Rails Placed Orthogonal to the South and East Column Faces
178
North Face South Face
5000 0.25% Drift Cycle
5000
0.45% Drift Cycle

4000
0.90% Drift Cycle
1.15% Drift Cycle
3000 3000
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2000 2000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
1000 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
East Face West Face
5000 5000

4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3-54: Specimen B2 – Profile of Strains in Studs on Rails Placed Orthogonal to the Column Faces
179
5000 5000 0.25% Drift Cycle
0.45% Drift Cycle

4000
0.90% Drift Cycle
1.15% Drift Cycle
3000 3000
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2000 2000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
1000 1000 2.75% Drift Cycle
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
East Face West Face
5000 5000

4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3-55: Specimen B3 – Profile of Strains in Studs on Rails Placed Orthogonal to the Column Faces
180
7000
6000
5000
10
Reloaded Gravity
4000 Force on Slab 7
Strain (x106)
11
3000
8, 9
2000
1000
-1000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
X-Drift (percent)
Figure 3-56: Specimen B3 – Strains Recorded in Stud RO-SE2, Showing Large Increases Before Points 7
and 10 When the Gravity Load on the Slab was Reloaded
181
South-East Corner South-West Corner
5000 5000 0.25% Drift Cycle
0.45% Drift Cycle

4000 4000 0.70% Drift Cycle
0.90% Drift Cycle
1.15% Drift Cycle
3000 3000
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2000 2000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
1000 1000 2.75% Drift Cycle
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
North-East Corner North-West Corner
5000 5000

4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3-57: Specimen B3 – Profile of Strains in Studs on Rails Placed at 45 Degrees From Column Faces
182
5000 5000 0.25% Drift Cycle
0.45% Drift Cycle

4000 4000 0.70% Drift Cycle
0.90% Drift Cycle
1.15% Drift Cycle
3000 3000
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2000 2000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
1000 1000 2.75% Drift Cycle
3.70% Drift Cycle
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
East Face West Face
5000 5000

4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3-58: Specimen B4 – Profile of Strains in Studs on Rails Placed Orthogonal to the Column Faces Away from the Corners (Inner Orthogonal)
183
5000 5000 0.25% Drift Cycle
0.45% Drift Cycle

4000
0.90% Drift Cycle
1.15% Drift Cycle
3000 3000
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2000 2000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
1000 1000 2.75% Drift Cycle
3.70% Drift Cycle
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
East Face West Face
5000 5000

4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3-59: Specimen B4 – Profile of Strains in Studs on Rails Placed Orthogonal to the Column Faces Near the Corners (Outer Orthogonal)
184
South-East Corner South-West Corner
5000 5000 0.25% Drift Cycle
0.45% Drift Cycle

4000 4000 0.70% Drift Cycle
0.90% Drift Cycle
1.15% Drift Cycle
3000 3000
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2000 2000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
1000 1000 2.75% Drift Cycle
3.70% Drift Cycle
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
North-East Corner North-West Corner

5000 5000

4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3-60: Specimen B4 – Profile of Strains in Studs on Rails Placed at 45 Degrees From Column Faces
185
Reinforcement Laid in X-Direction
0.45% Drift Cycle
0.70% Drift Cycle

1.15% Drift Cycle
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
6000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
Yield Strain
4000
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance in Y-Direction from Center of Slab (in.)
Figure 3-61: Specimen B1 – Profile of Strains in Top Mat Flexural Reinforcement Placed in the X-Direction at d/2 from Column Face
186
Reinforcement Laid in Y-Direction
0.45% Drift Cycle
0.70% Drift Cycle

1.15% Drift Cycle
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
6000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
Yield Strain
4000
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance in X-Direction from Center of Slab (in.)
Figure 3-62: Specimen B1 – Profile of Strains in Top Mat Flexural Reinforcement Placed in the Y-Direction at d/2 from Column Face
187
20
15
Force in Y-Direction [kip] 10
-5
-10
-15
0.90% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
Figure 3-63: Specimen B1 – Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge TE2
20
15
10
Force in Y-Direction [kip]
-5
-10
-15
0.90% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
188
20
15
Force in X-Direction [kip] 10
-5
-10
-15
1.15% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
Figure 3-65: Specimen B1 – Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge TS3
20
15
10
Force in X-Direction [kip]
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
Figure 3-66: Specimen B1 – Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge BS2
189
20
15
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
190
20
15
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
Figure 3-70: Specimen B1 – Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge BE7
191
0.45% Drift Cycle
0.70% Drift Cycle

1.15% Drift Cycle
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
6000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
Yield Strain
4000
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 3-71: Specimen B2 – Profile of Strains in Flexural Reinforcement Placed in the X-Direction at d/2 from Column Face
192
0.45% Drift Cycle
0.70% Drift Cycle

1.15% Drift Cycle
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
6000
1.85% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
Yield Strain
4000
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 3-72: Specimen B2 – Profile of Strains in Flexural Reinforcement Placed in the Y-Direction at d/2 from Column Face
193
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
0.70% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
0.70% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
194
20
15
-5
-10
-15
0.70% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
0.90% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
195
20
15
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
1.85% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
196
20
15
-5
-10
-15
1.85% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
197
20
15
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
198
0.45% Drift Cycle
0.70% Drift Cycle

1.15% Drift Cycle
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
2.75% Drift Cycle
4000 Yield Strain
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 3-83: Specimen B3 – Profile of Strains in Top Mat Flexural Reinforcement Placed in the X-Direction at d/2 from Column Face
199
0.45% Drift Cycle
0.70% Drift Cycle

1.15% Drift Cycle
1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
2.75% Drift Cycle
4000 Yield Strain
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
200
20
15
-5
-10
-15
0.70% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
0.70% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
201
20
15
-5
-10
-15
0.90% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
0.90% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
202
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
1.85% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
203
0.45% Drift Cycle
0.70% Drift Cycle
0.90% Drift Cycle
8000
1.15% Drift Cycle

1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
2.75% Drift Cycle
3.70% Drift Cycle
4000
Yield Strain
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 3-91: Specimen B4 – Profile of Strains in Top Mat Flexural Reinforcement Placed in the X-Direction at d/2 from Column Face. Gauge TS3, Located 3 in.
From the Centerline of the Slab, was Damaged After the 1.85% Drift Cycle.
204
0.45% Drift Cycle
0.70% Drift Cycle
0.90% Drift Cycle
8000
1.15% Drift Cycle

1.40% Drift Cycle
1.60% Drift Cycle
2.30% Drift Cycle
2.75% Drift Cycle
3.70% Drift Cycle
4000
Yield Strain
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
205
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
1.40% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
Figure 3-93: Specimen B4 – Applied Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge TE2
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
0.90% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
Figure 3-94: Specimen B4 – Applied Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge TS2
206
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
1.85% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
1.60% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
207
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
Figure 3-97: Specimen B4 – Applied Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge BE2
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
Figure 3-98: Specimen B4 – Applied Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge BE3
208
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15
2.30% Drift Cycle
-20
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Strain [] -3
x 10
Figure 3-99: Specimen B4 – Applied Lateral Force versus Strain in Gauge BS3
209
3000
Column Base Moment About X-Axis (kip-in.)

2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Column Base Rotation About X-Axis (rad)
Figure 3-100: Specimen B1 – Column Base Moment versus Rotation (About X-Axis)
3000
Column Base Moment About Y-Axis (kip-in.)
2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Column Base Rotation About Y-Axis (rad)
Figure 3-101: Specimen B1 – Column Base Moment versus Rotation (About Y-Axis)
210
3000

2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
3000
2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
211
3000

2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
3000
2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
212
3000

2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
3000
2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
213
0.12 12
Based on LVDTs in X-Direction
0.09 Based on LVDTs in Y-Direction 10
0.06 8
0.03 6
Rotation (rad)
Drift (percent)
0 4
-0.03 2
-0.06 0
-0.09 -2
X-Drift
Y-Drift
-0.12 -4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Sample Number x 10
4
Figure 3-108: Specimen B1 – Rotation About Vertical Z-Axis

0.12 12
0.06 8
0.03 6
Rotation (rad)
Drift (percent)
0 4
-0.03 2
-0.06 0
-0.09 -2
X-Drift
Y-Drift
-0.12 -4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Sample Number x 10
4
214
0.12 12
0.06 8
0.03 6
Rotation (rad)
Drift (percent)
0 4
-0.03 2
-0.06 0
-0.09 -2
X-Drift
Y-Drift
-0.12 -4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Sample Number x 10
4

0.12 12
0.06 8
0.03 6
Rotation (rad)
Drift (percent)
0 4
-0.03 2
-0.06 0
-0.09 -2
X-Drift
Y-Drift
-0.12 -4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Sample Number x 10
4
215
4.
-3
x 10
Average Bottom Slab Strain Over 1d From Column Face

4
North Face
East Face
Adjustment of
South Face Gravity Load
West Face Gravity Load Start of 0.45%
2 Application Drift Cycle to 0.25% Drift Drift Cycle
Tension
Compression
-2
-4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Sample Number
Figure 4-1: Average Strain in the Bottom Face of the Slab of Specimen B1, Measured Within One
Effective Slab Depth of the Column Face
2500
2000
1500
8
Strain (x106)
1000
7
500
-500
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
X-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-2: Specimen B1 – Strain from Gauge R-E1, Showing a Change in Slope and Large
Increase In Strain While Loading to Point 8 of 1.60% Drift Cycle
216
3000
11
2500
2000
Strain (x106)
1500 10
1000
500
-500
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-3: Specimen B1 – Strain from Gauge R-E2, Indicating a Large Increase in Strain Beyond
Yield While Loading to Point 11 of 1.85% Drift Cycle
3000
2500
2
2000 1
Strain (x106)
1500
1000
500
0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
X-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-4: Specimen B1 – Strain from Gauge R-S1, Indicating a Large Increase in Strain Beyond
Yield Followed by a Decrease in Strain While Loading to Point 2 of 2.30% Drift Cycle
217
3000
2500
2000
1500
2
Strain (x106)
1000
500
-500
1
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
X-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-5: Specimen B1 – Strain from Gauge BS-S2, Indicating a Shift from Compression to
Tension Strains While Loading to Point 2 of 2.30% Drift Cycle
3000
2500
2000
Strain (x106)
1500
1000
500
-500
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-6: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge R-E1, the Only Instrumented Stud to Exhibit
Strains Exceeding 0.0015 Prior to the Cycle to 1.85% Drift (1.60% Drift Cycle is Bold)
218
2500
Increase while holding
at Point 5 5
2000
1500
5
1000
Strain (x106)
4
500
-500
-1000
-1500
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-7: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge R-W1, Showing a Large Increase in Strain During
the 1.85% Drift Cycle as the Specimen Reached Point 5
3500
3000
2500
2000
Strain (x106)
1500
1000
5
500
-500
-1000 4
-1500
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-8: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge BS-S3, Showing a Shift from Flexural
Compression to Integrity Reinforcement-Type Tension During the 1.85% Drift Cycle
219
2000
1500
1000
Strain (x106)
500
7
0 8
-500
-1000
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
X-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-9: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge BS-E2, Showing a Decrease in Strain of 0.0006
While Loading to Point 8 of 1.85% Drift Cycle
1400
7 8
1200
1000
800
Strain (x106)
600
400
200
-200
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
X-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-10: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge TS-E9, Showing a Change in Slope While
Loading to Point 8 of 1.85% Drift Cycle
220
3000
11
2500
2000
Strain (x106)
1500
1000
10
500
-500
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-11: Specimen B2 – Strain from Gauge R-S1, Showing a Jump in Strain and Increase
Beyond Yield While Loading to Point 11 of 1.85% Drift Cycle
1600
1400
1200
1000
Strain (x106)
800
2
600
400
200
1
0
-200
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
X-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-12: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RO-SW2, Showing a Marked Increase in Strain
While Loading to Point 2 of 1.15% Drift Cycle
221
3000
2500
2000
Strain (x106)
1500
1000
500
-500
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-13: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RR-NW1, Showing Large Strains But No Clear
Initiation of Cracking (Response versus X-Drift is Similar)
1400
1200
1000
800
Strain (x106)
600
5
400
4
200
-200
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-14: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RR-NW6, Showing a Change in Slope and
Increase in Strain While Loading to Point 5 of 1.85% Drift
222
2000
7
1500
8
1000
500
0
Strain (x106)
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
X-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-15: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RR-NE1, Showing an Uncharacteristic Negative
Slope While Loading to 8 of 1.85% Drift
4000
3500
3000
2500 11
Strain (x106)
2000
1500
10
1000
500
-500
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-16: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RO-SE1, Showing a Large Increase in Strain
While Loading to Point 11 of 1.85% Drift
223
8000
7000
6000
5000 4
Strain (x106)
4000
3000
2
2000 3
1000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
X-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-17: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge RO-WS1, Showing Yielding and a Large Increase
in Strain While Loading to Point 4 of 2.30% Drift Cycle
3000
2000
1000
Strain (x106)
0
5
1
-1000
3
2
-2000 4
-3000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
X-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-18: Specimen B3 – Strain from Gauge BS-E3, Showing Compressive Strains Late in the
1.85% Drift Cycle and Throughout the 2.30% Drift Cycle
224
2000
11
1500
10
Strain (x106)
1000
500
-500
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-19: Specimen B4 – Strain from Gauge OO-SE2, Showing an Uncharacteristic Decline in
Strain While Loading to Point 11 of the 1.40% and 1.60% Drift Cycles
2000
11
1500
1000 10
Strain (x106)
500
-500
-1000
-1500
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-20: Specimen B4 – Strain from Gauge OI-SW2, Showing a Steep Increase in Strain
While Loading to Point 11 of the 1.85% Drift Cycle
225
8000
7000 5
6000
5000
Strain (x106)
4000
3000
2
2000
3, 4
1
1000
-1000
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-21: Specimen B4 – Strain from Gauge OI-WN2, Showing Strains Near Yield (Circled)
Followed by a Large Increase in Strain While Loading to Points 2 and 5 of the 2.30% Drift Cycle
14000
12000
10000
8000 5
Strain (x106)
6000
4000
2000
4
0
-2000
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Y-Drift (percent)
Figure 4-22: Specimen B4 – Strain from Gauge BS-S3, Showing a Very Large Increase in Strain
While Loading to Point 5 of the 2.30% Drift Cycle
226
Figure 4-23: Specimen B2 – Connection Region where Damaged Concrete was Removed by Hand
Figure 4-24: Specimen B3 – Void in Connection Region after Loose Concrete was Removed
227
Figure 4-25: Specimen B4 – Gravel-Like Concrete within Connection Region
Figure 4-26: Specimen B4 – Void between Slab and Column after Loose Concrete Had Been
Removed
228
Figure 4-27: Schematic of Traditional Shear Failure Mechanism Governed by Diagonal Shear
Cracking Bridged by Shear Stud Reinforcement
229
8
No Shear Reinforcement
8 Shear Stud Reinforcement
7 No Shear Reinforcement
8 Current Study
Shear Stud Reinforcement
7 No Shear Reinforcement
6 Current Study
Shear Stud Reinforcement
7
[%] [%] [%]
6 Current Study
5
at Ultimate
6
5
at Ultimate
4
5
at Ultimate
4
3
Drift
4
3
DriftDrift
2
3 Hueste and Wight
2 ACI 318
1 Hueste and Wight
2 ACI 318
1 Hueste and Wight
0 ACI 318 0.2
10 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0 Gravity Shear
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ratio
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0 Gravity Shear
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ratio 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Gravity Shear Ratio
Figure 4-28: Drift Capacity versus Gravity Shear Ratio from Various Researchers
230
APPENDICES
A. SHEAR STUD REINFORCEMENT DESIGN
This appendix reports the design calculations used for detailing the shear reinforcement for
Specimens B1 and B2. Specimen B3 was provided with an identical amount of shear
reinforcement as Specimen B1. Specimen B4 was provided with a greater amount of shear
reinforcement than Specimens B1, B2, and B3.
Specimen B1:
Critical Section properties

b0  4 16in  4.75in   83in
A0  bo  d  4.75in  83in  394in 2
d  l1  d  d 3  l1  d  d  l2  d  l1  d 
3 2
Jc     28662in4
6 6 2
Design Forces
The design for this specimen was based on the approach outlined in ACI 318-08 Section
21.13.6(a). The assumed strength of the concrete was 5000 psi. Based on mill certs provided by
VSL Post-Tensioning, the shear stud strength was conservatively taken as 55 ksi. The design
shear force, Vu, was calculated based on a 50% gravity shear ratio.
Vu  2 fc' Ao  2 5000  394.25in  55.76kip
An unbalanced moment of 1400 kip-in was assumed based on test results from a previously
tested shear stud reinforced specimen (Cheng et al. 2009). Using the eccentric shear model, the
maximum shear stress was calculated as
Vu M u  c   v 55kip 1400kip  in 10.375in  0.4
vu      344 psi
Ao Jc 394.25in 28662in4
l  d 16in  4.75in
c   10.375in
2 2
231
1
 v  1
2
1
3
Design of Shear Studs

Design shear stress = 344 psi
According to Section 11.11.5.2 of the ACI Building Code, if vu<5√ , then a maximum spacing
of 0.75d is allowed spacing is allowed. For Specimen B1, a spacing of 0.5d, or 2.375 in., was
used to increase the capacity due to the design assumption that vc=0
Av f y d
Using Eqn. 11-15: Vs 
s
Av V v b 344 psi  83in
  s  s 0   0.519
s f yd fy 55000 psi
 Av  1.23in2
If 3/8 in. diameter rods are selected, As (per rod) = 0.11in2.

12 rods are provided in each peripheral row of reinforcement
Per ACI 318-08 Section 11.11.5.1:
Av f y 1.32in 2  55000 psi
vs    368 psi  2 5000  141 psi
bo s 83in  2.375in
vs  vc  vu
368 psi  0 psi  344 psi
Height of Shear Stud Assemblies per Section 11.11.5

a – concrete cover on the top flexural reinforcement 0.75 in
b – concrete cover on the base rail 0.75 in.
c – one-half of the bar diameter of the tension flexural reinforcement = 0.25 in.
hSSR  h  a  b  c
hSSR  6in  0.75in  0.75in  0.25in  4.25in
Total height of assembly shall be 4.25in
Layout of Shear Stud Reinforcement
232
The layout of the shear stud assemblies is shown in Figure A-1. Three stud rails were placed
perpendicular to each face of the column. The spacing between rails was
7.375in  gmax  2d  9.5in . The first peripheral row of studs was located a perpendicular
distance from the column equal to 1.5in  so max  d 2  2.375in .
Shear Check Outside of Critical Section
61.75
c  30.875"
2
bo  4(16.72in  31.84in)  192.96in
l
J  d  ( yi2  yi y j  y j )
3
16.72 

 3
 
8.632  8.632  8.632  2  

 4.75  
 3

  3

 29.88 30.882  30.88  8.36  8.362  4  16.72 3  30.882  2 



 397943in 4
Per Section 11.11.7.2:
55kip 1400kip  in  30.875in  0.4

vu    103.06 psi  2 5000 psi  141.42 psi
194.24in  4.75in 397943in4
Figure A-1: Shear Reinforcement Layout for Specimen B1
233
Specimen B2:
The same sectional and material properties were used for the design of Specimens B1 and B2.
Concept:
The design for this specimen was based on the minimum shear reinforcement required by ACI
318-08 Section 21.13.6 where neither a stress or drift capacity check is performed.
√ √
If 3/8 in. diameter rods are selected, As (per rod) = 0.11in2.

12 rods are provided in each peripheral row of reinforcement
Av f y d
Using Eqn. 11-15: Vs 
s
f y dAv 55000 psi  4.75in 1.32
s   3.54in  0.75d  3.56in
Vs 97500lb
The resulting design is shown in Figure A-2. The first stud is positioned a perpendicular distance
of 2 in. from the column face on each stud rail with a subsequent stud spacing be equal to 3.5 in.
Eight rows of reinforcement are provided such that the last row of studs is located 26.5 in. from
the column face, which is greater than 4h, or 24 in.
Figure A-2: Shear Reinforcement Layout for Specimen B2
234
B. SLAB-COLUMN ROTATIONS
Shown below in Figure B-1 to Figure B-8 are plots of moment transferred into the column versus
slab rotation at each column face in the four specimens tested. LVDTs were mounted to the slab
surface; therefore, as the slab began to drop as punching initiated, the data collected became
unreliable. Using photographic data indicating when the slab began to exhibit punching damage,
a point was chosen for each specimen to signify when LVDT data became unreliable. Punching
initiated in each specimen during the 1.85% drift cycle; accordingly, only data collected prior to
loading to Points 8, 8, 5, and 11 in the 1.85% drift cycle for Specimen B1, B2, B3, and B4
respectively were plotted.
235
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Slab Rotation d from the North Column Face (rad) Slab Rotation 2d from the North Column Face (rad)
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Slab Rotation d from the South Column Face (rad) Slab Rotation 2d from the South Column Face (rad)
Figure B-1: Specimen B1 – Slab-Column Rotations in X-Direction
236
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Slab Rotation d from the East Column Face (rad) Slab Rotation 2d from the East Column Face (rad)
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Slab Rotation d from the West Column Face (rad) Slab Rotation 2d from the West Column Face (rad)
Figure B-2: Specimen B1 – Slab-Column Rotations in Y-Direction
237
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
238
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
239
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 No Data Available
0
Due to Instrument Malfunction
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
240
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
241
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
242
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
1500 1500
1000 1000

500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
243
C. BOTTOM STORY AND SECOND HALF-STORY DRIFT RATIOS
Story drift ratio is defined as the relative lateral displacement of floor slabs in consecutive
stories in a building as a percentage of the height of the respective story. Most of the
analyses discussed herein were performed using the drift of the entire 1.5 stories of the
specimen as it was believed to be more representative than either the first story or the
second half-story drift. However, measurements were also taken that allow calculation of
the drift of the first story and second half-story of the specimen. Hysteresis plots using
drifts calculated over the bottom story and top half-story are included in this section. The
calculation of the top half-story drift, , and bottom story drift, B, can be found in Eqns.
(2.2) and (2.3) respectively.
Hysteresis plots for loading in the X and Y directions for Specimens B1, B2, B3, and B4
are shown in order in Figure C-1 to Figure C-16. Also, in Figure C-17 through Figure
C-24, the first story, second half-story, and full specimen drifts are plotted for each of the
four specimens. Second half-story drifts were larger than first story drifts throughout the
tests by approximately 40 to 60%.
244
20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
X-Axis Drift Over First Story (percent)
Figure C-1: Specimen B1 – Load versus First Story Drift in X-Direction
20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
X-Axis Drift Over Second Half-Story (percent)
Figure C-2: Specimen B1 – Load versus Second Half-Story Drift in X-Direction
245
20
15
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Y-Axis Drift Over First Story (percent)
Figure C-3: Specimen B1 – Load versus First Story Drift in Y-Direction

20
15
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Y-Axis Drift Over Second Half-Story (percent)
Figure C-4: Specimen B1 – Load versus Second Half-Story Drift in Y-Direction
246
20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
-10
-15
Full Hysteresis
Fracture of Studs
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
-5
-10
-15
Full Hysteresis
Fracture of Studs
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
247
20
15
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
20
15
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
248
20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
249
20
15
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
20
15
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
250
20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
20
15
10
X-Axis Force (kip)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
251
20
15
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
20
15
10
Y-Axis Force (kip)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
252
4
2
X-Axis Drift (percent)
1
-1
-2
Full Specimen
-3
First Story
Second Half-Story
-4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Sample Number x 10
4
Figure C-17: Specimen B1 – First Story, Second Half-Story, and Full Specimen X-Axis Drift
4
2
Y-Axis Drift (percent)
-1
-2
Full Specimen
-3
First Story
Second Half-Story
-4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Sample Number x 10
4
Figure C-18: Specimen B1 – First Story, Second Half-Story, and Full Specimen Y-Axis Drift
253
4
2
1
-1
-2
Full Specimen
-3
First Story
Second Half-Story
-4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Sample Number x 10
4
4
2
-1
-2
Full Specimen
-3
First Story
Second Half-Story
-4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Sample Number x 10
4
254
4
2
1
-1
-2
Full Specimen
-3
First Story
Second Half-Story
-4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Sample Number x 10
4
4
2
-1
-2
Full Specimen
-3
First Story
Second Half-Story
-4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Sample Number x 10
4
255
4

1
-1
-2
Full Specimen
-3
First Story
Second Half-Story
-4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sample Number x 10
4
4
2
-1
-2
Full Specimen
-3
First Story
Second Half-Story
-4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sample Number x 10
4
256

Final Report For Effect of Shear Stud Layout On The Seismic Behavior of Slab-Column Connections PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Final Report For Effect of Shear Stud Layout On The Seismic Behavior of Slab-Column Connections PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Drift Capacity of Slab-Column Connections Reinforced with

Headed Shear Studs and Subjected to Combined Gravity Load and

1.1. Slab-Column Connections in Flat Plate Frame Systems

1.2. Shear Reinforcement in Seismic Regions

As illustrated in Figure 1-3, shear stud reinforcement is intended to prevent punching

where Av is the area of headed stud reinforcement in a single peripheral line of

For slab-column connections of structures located in areas designated as seismic design

2.1. Overall Specimen Configuration

2.2. Specimen Design

Specimen B2 was provided with shear reinforcement such that vs = √ (psi)

2.3. Specimen Instrumentation

2.3.2. Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs)

2.3.3. String Potentiometers

2.4. Material Properties

2.4.2. Reinforcing Steel

2.4.3. Shear Stud Reinforcement

2.5. Test Activities

2.5.2. Loading Methods

2.5.3. Loading Protocol

Results from experiments performed on four large-scale slab-column subassemblies,

In Section 3.1, a discussion of visual damage progression of each specimen throughout

3.1. Damage Progression

3.3. Load Drift Response and Gravity Shear History

Similar to Specimen B1, results from Specimen B2 showed a consistent relationship

3.4. Load versus Drift Envelope Response

3.5. Vertical Drop of Slab at Column

3.6. Maximum Shear Stress Based on Eccentric Shear Model

3.7. Slab-Column Flexural Rotations

3.8. Shear Stud Strains

3.9. Slab Flexural Reinforcement Strain Readings

3.10. Column Base Rotations

3.11. Twist of Slab Relative to Column

4.1. Specimen Performance

Specimen B2 behaved in a stable flexurally-dominated manner up to the cycle at 1.60%

Specimen B4 exhibited a behavior dominated by flexural deformations for several cycles

A schematic of the traditionally assumed cracking at punching failure in a slab-column

4.3. Shear Studs and Concrete Confinement

In connections subjected to low levels of shear stress and lateral displacements, it is

√ ( ) √ ( ) (where is the largest applied shear stress calculated

Based on the maximum calculated shear stresses of √ (psi), the maximum

theoretical concrete contribution to shear strength was approximately √ (psi). This

4.4.3. Maximum Connection Shear Capacity

4.5. Drift and Gravity-Shear Ratio

An experimental study was conducted on four subassemblies of non-prestressed concrete

 Compared to previously tested slab-column connections with shear stud

 Based on the better performance exhibited by Specimen B4 compared to the other

√ (psi), as used for other types of shear reinforcement. This recommendation

 After punching in Specimen B2 occurred, several studs fractured at their base

ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 352. Guide for Design of Slab-Column Connections in

Broms, Carl Erik. "Ductility of Flat Plates: Comparison of Shear Reinforcement

Cheng, Min-Yuan, and Gustavo J. Parra-Montesinos. "Punching Shear Strength and

Comité Européen de Normalisation. "Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures — Part

Dilger, Walter H., and S. J. Brown. "Earthquake Resistance of Slab-Column

Hawkins, Neil M, D. Mitchell, and M. S. Sheu. "Cyclic Behavior of Six Reinforced

Megally, Sami H. "Punching Shear Resistance of Concrete Slabs to Gravity and

Morrison, Denby G, and Mete A. Sozen. "Response of Reinforced Concrete Plate-

Robertson, Ian Nicol, and Ahmad J. Duranni. "Seismic Response of Connections in

Table 2-1: Slab and Connection Details for Each Specimen

Reinforcement Number of Stud Spacing

B1 17 ft x 17 ft x 6 in. 0.006 4.75 in. 3 0.50d (2-3/8”) N N/A

Bottom Mat Reinforcement

Specimen Base Block1 Bottom Column1 Slab2 Top Column/Block1

6700 6800 5800 7300